Yale University Library III III 1 II liii Iiiiilii II 39002007286934 '1; ^ . t !• i, ,••_. \ : ' ,1 -;. ,;ii; •.!•>?> YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY The EDWIN J. BEINECKE, '07 FREDERICK W. BEINECKE, '09 S WALTER BEESTECKE, '10 FUND pjki are all laiued In one volume, in io each, or bound in cloth at 52.00 each. " y author of " Caste," "Mr. Arle," &c. Trollope. A charmiDg Btory, pt and Conetantinople. ion and Reader. With Mfi IHufltratloDs. •FB from Eurone, with Portrait & Index. ; or, Valley of a Hundred Firea, id. By author of "George Geith.'* . A Novel. By Wiliam Ilowitt. Bv the Comttess of Blee^ington. ;t. By Col. J. Richter Jonee. I0ve Scory. By Baronees Tautphoeufl. 'author of *' Pique.'* Jy author of " Family Pride." [author of " IMargaret Maitland.'* companion to" Self Sacriflce." Ey Lady Jane Scott. By a Lady ofthe Spanish Court. ian Tale of Frontier Life in ir8r. A. Love Story, By AnniP Thomas. fhta about Women. By Mise Mulick. 1 The Storv of » "Woman's Life." orld. By WiUiam North. rite; OT, the Price of a Crown. : Aftemoon of Single Life. 'wo Ways to Matrimnr>y. Life and LetterE of Eliza Wharton. the Sincere Lover. A Love Story. I. By Mrs- Denison. li.igton. Ev Mrs N. P. LaBeelle. low. By ^i^s. Percy B. SheUey. By J- B.-l'Mies; author of Rival Belles. By Beatrice Reynold'. ret. By William' Godwin. nonable Life. By Catharine Sinclair. Jy Mra. 0!li.ha''t. jr. By Henry Wnifam Herbert. ion. By E. M, Whitty. or,Lifein Washinfftoa. By J. B. Jones. e. By St. Genrce Tucker. py Mr«. Iliibba'h, 1 By author of ¦' Man In Grey." !to Needlework and Embroidery. ( to True Pollteuess. By Mies Leolle. rtB and Adventures in Africa. '9 Yankee StoriPB. Illustrated. , trimony. By Robert Morris. York. By Jonathan Slick. land. By Annette Marie Maillard. r Herman Melville, author of " Omoo." 1 Martyrdom of Abraham Lincoln. hlogton. By Mrs. N. P. Lasseile. )ckmaker. By Sam Slick. rtahlpand Travels. lUuatrEtod. ,d Beaotienof Fanny Tern. t of Lola Montez, with her portrait. :enefl. By author Wild Western Scenes. alconbridge. By J. F. Kelty. IlluBtrated. the Autobiography of an Actress. fentnresand Travels- lUustrated. cenesin Arkannaw. IllDstrat«d. vern; or, Sam Slick In Texas. or; or. High Life in New York. , By H. H. Brackenridge. Vols. 7 and 2. idventurefland Travels. Illustrated, ¦q. His Life and Adventures. ¦I other Minerals. By Eli Bowen. jor. By J. Thornton Randolph. 3(,Wonder of Kingswood Chane. .p i* Sand, author of " ConBuelo." I, ."^^j. By Gcoree Sand. t ' ii^il. Bv Wilkie CoUIna. tRvt've Story. Bv Mrs. Grey. ft /t«^'C CoIHdp. author of " BasH." ln\.r Tir-: r J*tory. By Mifis Pardoe. np«™I A fvV. author "Gambler's Wife." fh'w„-^- vel. By G. P.R Jaraes. t^"p^'^'''"^niau8^ By T . S. Arthur. V A tI^^^o^'I Marrfaie. IUustrated. ' Bv Mies Pardoe. - A Love Sv; ^¦^k.?^— ^.^'i^'f '• Frank Fair'.eqh.- ,andCiyilW". By J. B.Jones. .By Lui,ren&-.ue/ iHnetrated. .ndlt9Srq„fei. By Eugene Sue. ?• By Eugene-|',e '. By Samuel 1. Warren. ^. By Alexandt, Oumas. \w'^",^r"4- ^3'^lej. Dumas. e W. M. Reynolo, leralB By Geor.^ Lippard. \9 Of Monk HaU. By Lippard. V G^orce Lippara of Wissahickon. ¦:{y Lippard. ¦ed in one volumt, iu paper 'Id in cloth, at ^2.00 each. nplete. Cloth $2 00 'Thackeray, 3.00, cl. I "0 ¦cloth, gilt 1 50 ^eofi:^ehre, cloth, i 00 T GAMBJ,ING. nod aper cover, o: The Opera Dancer,,.. 75 Child of Waterloo 7-^ Robert Bruce 75 The Gipsey Chief 75 Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots 75 Wallace, Hero Scotland. 1 00 Isttbel la Vincent 75 Vivian Bertram ., 75 Countess of Lascellee 75 Diilte of IMarch mont 75 TlieSnrdicr'9 Wife 75 May Middleton .75 Massacre of Glencoe. 75 Eustace Quentin 1 0( Joseph Wilmot 1 0( Banker's Paughter.... 1 0^ Kenneth 1 0( The Rye-House Plot.. 1 0( 'I'he Necromancer 1 OC r in cloth, at 52-00 each. Queen Joanna; or the 1 Court of Naples 73 Loves of the Harem 76 EUen Percy 7fl Agnes Evelyn 75 Pickwick Abroad 75 Parricide 75 Discardfd Queen.., 7,1 Life In Paris 50 Countess and the Page. . . .50 Eflgar Montrose 50 The Ruined Gamester 50 Ciprlna,or the Secrets 50 Clifford and the Actress.. 50 LANGUAGES WITHOUT MASTER. PMICE FORTY CEXTS EACH. French Without a Master. In Six Easy Lessons. German Without a Master. In Six Easy Lessons. Spanish Without a Master. In Four Lany Lessoni. Itiilian Without a Master. In Five Easy lessons. Latin Without a Master- In Six Easy Lessons. Any one or all of the niiove five Languages c«n be learned by any one without a teacher, with the aid of these books, by A. H. Monteith. The fire books are also bound in one large volume, iu cloth. Prtcp Two Dollars. MRS. HENRY WOOD'S BOOKS. Eleter'a Folly 51 50 St. Martin's Eve 1 50 Lord Oakhurn's Daugh ters ; or Earl's Heirs, 1 50 The Castle's Heir; or. Lady Adelald's Oath, I 60 Shadow of Ashlydyat.-J?! 50 Vemer'fl Pride 1 50 Oswald C ray , 1 50 Mildred ArkcU 150 Squire Trevlyn's Heir ; or Trevlyn's Hold... 150 Above are each ia paper cover, or In cloth at $'i 00 each. The Chaonings 51 00 [ Aurora Floyd 75 Above are each In paper cover, or in cloth at 51-50 each. The Mystery 75 f A Life's Secret 50 Above are also bound in cloth. Price 51 ^ each. Red Court Farm 75 Th^ host Bank Note 7o Better for Worae. 75 The LostWm .50 OrvlUe College The Haunted Tower. 50 The Runaway Match. .. .50 Foggy Night at Offord.. ..25 The Lawyer's Secret 25 William AUair 25 A Light and a Dark Christmas 25 WILKIE COLLINS' BEST WCr'^"' The Crossed Path 51 50 | The Dead Secret, 12mo.tf.. Above are each in paper cover, or in cloth, at 52'OOeach. Hide and Seek 75 After Dark 75 The Dead Secret. Svo ....75 Above in cloth 51 each. The Queen's Revenge 75] Sights A-Foot 50 ¦ MadMonkton 50 J The Stolen Mask 25 ^ The Yellow Mask 95 ' Sister Roae 25 EMERSOIf BENNETT'S WORKS. The Border Rover gi 50 Clara Moreland 1 50 Viola; or Adventures in Far South West.. 150 Bride of Wilderness... 51 ''O Ellen Norbury 1 50 Forged WiU 1 50 iate Clarendon 160 Above are lo paper cover, or in cloth, at 52-00 each. Heiress of Bellefonte, and I Pioneer's Daughter and Walde-Warren 75 | Unknown Countess 75 C. J. PETERSON'S WORKS. Old Stone Miin«Ion . ...51 ^0 \ Kate Avlesford 51 50 Above are iu \)aper cover, ur in cloth, at 52.00 each. Cruising in Last War — 75 I Grace Dudley; or Arnold Valley Farm 25 | at Saratoga 50 DOW'S PATENT SERMONS. Bow's Patent Sermonfl. lat j Dow's Patent SermonB, Sd Series, , 51. m. cloth. .,51 iO 8eric«, A'l.nO, cloth. ..51 50 Dow'fl Patent SennonB, 2d ] Dow's Patent Sermons. 4th Series, gl 00, cloth.. ,51 JO | Series, ,51.110, cloth. .^1 JO THE SHAKSPEARE NOV^Tg. Youth of Shakspearp,.51 Ot I Shakspeart The Secret Passion.... 1 O'l | Friends The three above books are aUo bound in I ¦\ Is 5160 . 54 00 RIDDELL'S MODEL ARCH: .CT. Architectural Designs of Model Country Kesidenccs. By John Riddell, Practical Architect. Illustrated with Twent"-two Full Page >ront Elevations, colored, with Forty four Plates of Ground Plans, Including the First and Second Stories, with plans ofthe stories, full specifi cations of all the articles need, and estimate of price. Great attention is given to the internal arrangements, in regard to the afairs, store-roouis, water-clo-ets. bath- moms, and closets ; also to h?rtt. light and ventilation. PrpnarPd Pxrrnculv fnr.pgmonH.MhQ enntp.mnlate bujjdjgftj^ THE GREAT IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WITH THE WHOLE OP THB PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, AND IN THB SEN- ' ATE 0^ THE UNITED STATES. TOGETHb'r WITH THE ELBYEN ARTICLES OP IMPEACHMENT, AND THE WHOLE OP THE PROCEEDINGS IN THB COURT OP IMPEACHMEN'T, .WITH JTHE Verbatim 'EtiDENCE OP ALL j,^ THE witnesses, and CROSS-EXAMINATIONS OP THEM, VlTH THE SPEECHES OP THE MANAGERS AND THE CdUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES, WITH THE DECISIONS OP CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE, AND THE TERDICT OP THB COURT. WITH POETBAITS OE ANDEEW JOHNSON; CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE; GENEEAL TI. S, GEANT; HON. EDWIN U. STANTON; HON.'BENJAIIIN F. WADE; HON. BENJAMIN F. BTTTLEB; HON. THADDETTS STEVENS; MAJOB-OEN. LOBENZO THOKAS. PHILADELPHIA: T. B.' PETERSON & BROTHEES; 306 CHESTNUT STREET. Entered accorBing to Act of Congress, in the year 1868,, by T. B, PETERSON & BROTHERS, ^ In the Clerk's Office of the District Court qf the United States, in {^d for, the Baster^i' District of Pennsylvania. ' CONTENTS. PASS The Great Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson — The Fortieth Congress, March 4th, 1867 , ,.¦.••......... 13 The Second Effort — An Imjifeachment Effected — Excitement through out the Gountry — The 22d of February, 1868, in Congress 14 — 15 Impeachment under the Constitution;. 16 The Senate Notified of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, by the House of Representatives H The Articles. of Impeachment as drawn np by the House Cpmniittee... 1,9 General.Butler. proposes* Supplementary ArticJe, whicli is adopted as . Article. 1.0.r~The Specifications to the same.....; ..20 — 3^2 Mr. Bingham offers another Article,- which had received' the unanimous vote of. the Managers, which is adopted as Article 11— Impeachment Articles read in the Senate— Opening o:^ the Trial.. ..'ii,l..'... , 22 Oath of the Chief Justice — The Senators Sworn — Hon. B. )?. tV'ade ChaUenged-^Remarks of Mr.- Sherman — Reverdy Johnson*s Views... 23 Can a Senator be excluded- from the Senate— The Pre'Si&eit might ask a Question.^-A.PreGed6ntoited^-Mri Wade's rights 2i Why the Challenge was- made—Mr; Sumner looks up Laiv and Equity — Remarksby.Mr, Howe,- Mr, Drake, -Mr. Thayer, Mr. Howard, Mr. Buckalew, .Mr.. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Morton, and othei-s ;".. 25 Proceedings of Thursday, March 5th' — A Point of Order.. 26 The Chief Justice sustained... •..-.• v.- ;. 2^ Speech of Mr. Dixon — Mr. Hendrieks- withdraws his Challenge . ......... 28 Senator Wade sworn — A -Proolamation — Mr. Howard's motibh ladopted — Entrance ofthe Managers of the Impeachment on the part of the House of .Representatives— Summons against the President — Ad journment ot the Court — The Summons served on Andrew JbhnSoh, President of the United-States-. ..'....; ' 29 The President's Reply to the Summons— Tbe Prayer — Report 6t the Sergeant^tArms — The President called — The Plea of the'President — A Professional -Statement by the Counsel for the Respondent 30 Mr. Bingham-'s Replication— Address of Judge Curtis, oneof the Coun sel for the Pres-ident — Reply-of Judge Wilson foi* the Managers — Mr. Stanbery Criticises the Action of the Managers.... ..:. 31 Remarks of the Chief Justice, Mr. Bingham; and others... :;;....... 32 Order of the Court— The Replications-Speech of General Butler. 33 Speech of Mr, Nelson,- one of the President's Counsel 34 — 35 Proceedings of Monday, March 23d-sThe' cdmmenceTnent of the Trial — Chief Justice Chase- enters the - Senate, takes -the Chair andcalls the Senate to order — The President's answer to the Eleven Articles , of Impeachment 36 — 45 (11)' 12 CONTENTS. FAai Proceedings of Tuesday, March 24th — The Replication of the Managers — Time for Preparation — The Private Consultation of the Senators... 46 Return of the Seijajie foojn their Secret Consultation- — Adgournment of the Court till Jifohda}; March 3o'th.... f.. 4t Proceedings of Monday, March SOth; — Opening argument of General Benjamin P. Butler ;.....' 41 — 58 ¦Recess— B^usineSiS Resumed— Genpral-putlerts ispeech (foncluded..*. ^ 59 Proceetlings df* Tuesday, March Slst— -Witnesses called. .i.;60 — 66 rroceedTiigs" of 'Wednesday Ist— ^Arrival of thei Managers— ll' , The' Journal--lTb.e .Cpn^g^gd.^.^iiterrog^^^^ — Arguments of Mi"! i; | "' 'Stanbeiry-^Authbrities demanded— -Mr. Butleris reply— The Ques- 'h I \ tio^-^Remarks oi" Mr, Curtig-^iArgument of Mr, Bingham ; 6 1 — -t^ Proceeding's of Thursday, April 2d — -The Seventh ;Rule^-Congressman ' ' Perrj^Sj^^estii^on^ll^'^^e^^ Emo,ry on the Stand, .i, .....76 — ^^85 Proceedings , of Prida,^,, April 3d...., i..,.....i.....j .....v. 1.86 — 94 Proceedings of Saturday, April 4th .,.. .,>.... ..........,ii...i..95-— 98 'i^roceedings 'oif "Ti{i^^^^ -April 9th..,..., ,'......... ....:L....i.99— 10'6 Proceedings of ^Jind^,, April IQth... , , ...i.^lOl-^^lB proceedings of Saturdaiy, ,4-Pril; l?lth*,....., ..,......;.; 117—^126 Proceedings of , ^(^ne[ay, April IStL , i. 127-^135 Proceedings of Ti;e,sday, April 14tb .....,.;... ;.. 136 'Proceedings qf j^Wednesday; April., 15th.. ..1 136— iltij P/oceedings of Thursday, April Iftth.,.., ..;; ......t.:.142— -150 trocee4|%S,^pf,jlFriday,, April I'^thv--*..,.- ;.151-^1M Proceedings. of ^aturday, April 18th.... ;...¦ ;..... 160^^1 67 proceedings of Monday, April. 2(),th.y.., , 168-^^471 Proceedings of Wednesday, April 22d..., ;.....i.,..................172-— 184 Proceedings of Thursday, April 23d.................. ...;...... 185-^197 Proceedings , of Friday, April 24th.. ,-..,.;.. ;..... 198^296 Proceedings Cjf Saturday, April 25th...,....., ......^,........ 20.7-'i^212 Proceedings of Monday, April 27th.,i.. '.:......... ..218-^223 Proceedings of Tuesday, April 28th.,,....,.. .....iL.224-^234 Proceedings of Wednesday, April, 2 9th........ ,..<., J.......235 — ^^2.41;; Proceedings of Thursday, April 30tii....,,., '. ^ ...242-^249; Proceedipgs of Friday, May 1st .......260-^251; Proceedings of Saturday, May 2d.,.,..,.,.... <.... .259-^^262 Proceedings of Monday,, Ma,y 4th ., 263- WlO Procee,4iugs of Tuesday, May 5tli..... .•¦.. 271-^2# Proceedings of , Wednesday, M?,y 6th....:' 279-i-284 Proceedings of Thursday, May 7tb — Court adjourns to Monday, May ' llth................. ,,... 285— 28il Proceedings of Monday, May llth — Address of the Chief Justice The Fortieth Congress. .On the, 4th day of March, 18§7, the Fortiett, Congress convened) it was composed . largely of members who had served in the previous body? Qn thefourt'h day ofthe session, Mr. Ashley proi- posed that the Judieiaiy Committee c6ntinue the investigations with reference to the'impeachmeid ofthe President. This proposition was agreed to, and was immediately foUowed by a resolution-' from Sidney tllarke, of Kansas, requesting the committee to report on the first day .p^ the meetr^ ing' of "the House after the recess. This latter provision was not obmplied with by the commit tee; there was a mid-snmmer session, short and^ busy; but the, impeachment investigation iwas not heard of until Ithe 25th day of November, 1867, when three reports were presented to Congress-- one majority and two minoriiy;ithB. majority re port recommended the impeachmeht of the Pre- ; cember, 1866, he iptroduced a. resolution for, the sident for high crimes and; misdemeanors. The appoiutmeut of a select committee to inquire ' Wo minority reports, each signed by two mem- , (13) 14 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. bers of the committee, advocated the suppression of any further proceedings. The reports were received and laid over until the 6th of December; a spirited discussion took place, and was pro longed until the close of the day's session. On the 7th the final vote was taken, and it stood — for impeachment, 56; against impeachment, 109; and thus ended the flidt attempt tb bring Andreur Johnson to trial. Xhe Seeond Effort. V The uext movement, toward impeachment gr^wout of a series of letters, which had. passed between President Johnson ana General Grant in the surrender of the 'VVar Office by the latter to wcretary Starritoh7''in"conformitj with tile action of the Senate. This correspondence was read in the House on the 4th of ^Febi-uary, 1868, and re ferred to the Reconstruction Committee. 'The object of this reference was to enable the com mittee to decide whether Mr. Johnson Had or was disposed to place such obstruction in the way of the acta of Congress aa to render his impeach ment necessary. The committee examined wit nesses, and deliberated upon, the project until the ISth inst., when they decided against presenting articles of impeachment. An In^eachment Effected. With the failure of the second attempt, those iB favor of impeachment ahandoned all hopes of tiieir project ever succeeding. And this feeling was shared by the nation at large. The President determined otherwise, and on the 21st of February, Congress and the country ¦were startled by the following communication, ¦vrhich was on that day submitted to the Mouse of Bepresentatves, by the Secretary of War, Hon. Edwin M. Stanton:.^ 1 Wak Defabxhent, 'Wabhinotow City, 'Feb. si, ises.— Sir :— General Thomas has just delivered to me a copy of the inclosed order, which you will please ctomiunicate to the' Hdu^e of KepresentatiVes. Your obedieHt' servant, Bdwih M. SiiUiioir, Secretary of War. Hon. Schuyler Colfax, Speaker of the House of Be- pieaentativos. BxEODTivE Mahsio^,' 'Wabhi»ston, Feb. 21. 1868.— Sfr:— By virtue of poiyer and authority vested in ne, aB President, by the 06'ostitatioii AnA laws of the 'Onited States, yoa ^re hereby removed from offlce, as Sscretary of tbe.Pepartment.of -War. a^d yonr func tions aa such will terminate npon re'celpi of this com- atonibation. ' Yon Will transfer to' BVeVet Major-Gene ral Lorenzo Tbomas, Adjutnnt-GeberalDf the Army, who bas this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, papers, and' other pnblic properly noTw in yonr custbdyand • clwrge. Rpspeotfully, yours, ' . . . (Signed) , , Ansbew .foiiNsoH, President of the Unjted States. To tbe Son. Sdwin M. Stanton, Washington, p. 0. -The House at once referred this action ofthe President's to the ; Eeconstruction Committee, with authority to report upon it at any time. The Representatives friendly to the President next endeavored to obtain an adjournment umtil Monday, the 24th,-'Satnrday being; Washington's Withday. The iRepublican members voted soUdly a^nst thia proposition. Just before tbe clo^e of the day's session, Hon. John Covode offered the following resolution as a question of privilege: — Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of tho -CCnite^ States, be impeached for high crimes and mis demeanors. This resolution was also referred to the Com mittee on Reconstruction. The unexpected action of the. President in tho case of Mr. Stanton took the Senate quite aback, and that liody considered the matter in Executive Session, and after a secret, deliberation of seven hours' duration, the following resolution was adopted: — Whcreag, The Senate ha* received and considered the communication of the President, slating ihnt he had removed Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, and had designated the Adjtitant-'GBneral of the Army to act as Secretarr of War ad interim ; therefore, Resolved, By the Senate of tbe United States, that tinder the Constitntion andlaws ofthe Uuited States, the President has no power lo remove tbe Secretary of War and to designate any other officer to perform the duty of that office ad interim. Excitement Througrhout the Country. The country was thrown into the wildest state' . of excitement by the action of the President ; it was generally admitted that he had defied Con gress. The Republicans urged immediate im peachment, the Democrats argued that the Presi dent's course was justifled by the Constitution of the United States. Civil wav was presaged; the ultra Democrats avowed theii" readiness to sup port the President, against impeachment by force of- ariqs,, and the Executive Mansion was ex posed to a flre of telegraphic despatches advising Mr. Johnson to stand firm, and proffers of men and arms. The Kadical Republicans favored the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House with missives of sympathy and encouragement; they, too, were ready to resort to arms. Bat this was merely the smoke of the Conflict, the .majority of the people were opposed to the em ployment of force. All were iinxlous, but none! l)Ht a few desperate adventurers thought of initiat-^ ing civil strife. Xhe 22d of Febrna-ry-, 186S, in Congjress. i Meanwhile Congress went cooUy and- deter minedly to its ,Tf ork, It , convened on the anni versary of Washington's birth, andat ten, minutes, past two o'clock) Hon. Thaddeus Stevens arose to make a report from the Committee on Reoour struction. . , i i The Speaker gave an admonition to the specta tors jn the. gallery and to members on tjie floor to preserve order during the proceedings about to take place, and to manifest neither approbation nor disapprobation. Mr. Stevens then' said:— From the Oomrfittee on Reconstruction I beg leave to mate the fol lowing 1-cport:— That, iri addition to the papers referred to the committee, the committee find that the President, on the 2lBt day of February, 1868, signed and ordered a commission or letter of authority to one Lorenzo Thomas, du-ecting and authorizing said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad iietiriirtj aud to take 'possession of the IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. IS books, records, papers and other public property in the War Department, of which the following te a copy : — . BxEODTiVE Mansiou, WASHiNOton, 1). G., Febmary 21, 1868. -Sir:— Tbe Hon. Edwin M. Stanton hiiving been removed from offlce as Secretary of War, you are hereby anthorized and Empowered to act as Secre tary of War od i-nterim, and will immediately enter npon the discbarge of the duties' pertaining to that office. Mr. Stantpn has been Instrncted to'traD^fer to Xou all records, books, papers and other public pro perty intrusted to bis charge. EespectfuUy ydurs. "'•(Signed) ' ' An-drrw Johnson. To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutaqt- _£)eneral Uuited States Army, Washiugtoa, D. C. (Ofiicial copy.) EespectfuUy furnished to Hon. Edwin M.Stanton. (Signed) I.. THomas, Secretary of War ad interim. Upon the evidence collected by the committee, which is hereafter presented, 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 Uuited States, be im peached of high crimesand misdemeanors. They therefore recommend to the House the adoption ofthe accompanying resolution.. Thaddeus Stbvens, C. T. Hurlbuket, (Jeorge S. Bodtwbll, . J. F. Fabnsworth, John A. Bingham, F. C. Beaman, H, E. Paine. Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United Statee, tie ., impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors. The report having been re^d, Mr. Stevens said : "Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention, in the flrst Instance, to discuss the question, and if there be no desire on the other side to discuss it, we are willing that the question shall be taken on the knowledge which the House already has. In deed, the fact of reiioving a man froin offlce "While the Senate is in session, without the consent of the Senate, is of Itself, if there was nothing else/always considered a high crime' and misde meanor, and was never practiced. But I will not discuss this question nnlcss gentlemen on the ofherside desire to discuss it." Gentlemen on the other side did anxiously desire to discuss ^ the question ; and a very lively debate ensued, tjerminatipg at quarter after eleven o'clock at night,,, The. debate was, redpened at ten o'clock on Monday morning and continued until flve in the afternoon, when the House proceeded, amid great but suppressed ex citement, to vote on'the resolution, as follows : — Resolved, That Andrew Johnson.^ President of the ^United States, be impeached of high crimes and mis- demeauois. During the vote excuses were made for the ab sence of Messrs. Robinson, Benjamin, Washburn (Ind.), WnUams (Ind.), ,Van Horn (Mo.), Trimble (Tenn.), Pomeroy,. DonMlly, Koontz, Maynard, and Shellabargcr. The Speaker stated.that lie could not,-consen;t that his constituents should be silent on so grave ah occasion , and therefore, as a ,menibcr of the House, he voted yea. The vote resulted— yeas, 126 ; iaya, 47, ae fol^ l0WS'>-r' Allison, Ames,A;idersctn, Arnell, ' Ashley (Nev.), Ashley (Ohio), Bailed,Baker,Baldwin,Banks, Beitinan,Beatty,, Benton, Bingham,BiaiBe, ' ¦ Blair. Boutwell, Bi-omwell, Broomall, Bucliland, Butler,Cake,Cburchill. Clarke (Ohio), Clarke, (Kaii.)( Coh\f, , Coburn,Cook,Cornell, t Covode,Cullum, Dawea, Podge^: : I Priffgs,Ecl^lej, £!ggleBton,BlSot, F)irnsworth, Ferris,Ferry, Fields,Gravely, , Adams, Archer, , Axtell, Barnes, ' ¦ Barnn-mi . Be-ck. Boyer.Brooks, ,. . Burr,Cary,Chanler, Eldridge, Fox,"Getz, Gloss brenner. Golladay, Griswold,, Halsey,Harding, Bigby, HiU,Hopper, Hopkins. Hubbard (la.), Hubbard (W.Va.) Hulburd, Hunter, lugersull, Jen ekes, Judd, .Tuliail,! ' Kelley, Kdlscy,Ketbham, Kit«heb, LuHin,Lawrence (Pa.), Lawrence (Ohio), Lincoln, Loan, Lognn,Lon abridge, , , Lynch,Mallory,Marvin,-, McCarthy,McClurg,Mercur,Miller,Moore, . Moorhead, Morrell, Mullins, Myers,Newcomb, Nunn.'O'Neill,Orth, NAYS. Grover, ' Haight, Hplman,HotdhkisS,Hnlibikrd (Conh.), Humphrey, John:ton,Jones, Kerr, Knott, Marshall, McCormick, McCnilough, ;Miorgan, Morpissey,Mnngen, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pilie,Pi'le, . ' Plaints,Poland,Polsley,Price, Raum,Robertson,Sawyerj Schenck, Scofield, , Seyle,Shanks,Smith, Spalding, ¦Starkweather, Stevens (N. H.), Stevens (Pa.), Stokes,Taffee,Taylor, Trowbridge,TwitcheU, Upson,"Van Aernam, Van Horn (N.T.), 'Van Wyck, Ward, '. ¦Washburn (WIb.), Washburne (Ill.)i Waehburn (Mass) Welker, , Williams (Pa.), Wilson (ToWa), Wilsou (Ohio), ' Wlll^ms (Pa.). Windora,Woodbridge, And Speaker-liia. Niblack, Nicbolson. Phelps.Prityn, Randall, Ross, , Sitgrejives, Stewart, Stone, Taber,Trimble (Ky.y, Van Aukeu, Van Trump, Wood,Wopdward— 4T. The announcement of the result elicited.no manifestation, but the immense audience which 'had fllled the galleries and corridors all the day, gradually dispersed till it was reduced to less thani one-fourth its original number. Mr. Steveus moved to reconsider the vote by Which the resolution was agreed to, and also moved to tiy the motion to reconsider on the table. ¦ The latter motion was agreed to, this being the parliamentary mode of making a decision flnal. Mr. Stevens then moved the following reapla- tion : — Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed to go to tbe Senate, and at tbe bar thereof, in the name of the House of Rqp^eaentatires and of all the people of the United 'Stistes, to impeach Andrew Johnson, Piesident of the Uuit«d States, 6? high Crimes iiBd misdemeanors, and acquaint thg Senate that, tbe- House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particalar articles of impeachmeilt- against blnr, and make good the same, .and that - the committee do de mand that the Seuate take the order for the appear. ance of said Andrew Johnson to answer to said im> peachment. 16 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. Second, Resolved, that a committee of seven be ap pointed to prepare and-'report articles of impeaii- ment against Andrew JnbBBon,* President of the United States, with powerto send for persons, papers and records, and to take testimony under oath. The Democratic members attemptfed to resort to fillibustering, but werp cut off, after an in effectual effort, by a motion to suspend the rules, BO as to bring the House immediately to avote on the respltitions. The rules were suspended, and tlie resolutions were adopted. Teas, 124; nays, iS. , , The Speaker then annpunced the two com- initees as follows: — Committee of two to anuQnnce to the Senate Jheaction ofthe House^Messrs. Stevens (Pa.), »d Bingham (Ohio.) Tlie committee of seven to prepare articles of knpeachment, consists 'of Messrs. Boutwell (Mass.), Stevens (Pa.), Bingham, (Ohio), Wilsou, (la.), Logan, (IU.), Juliaa, (Ind.), and Ward (S.Y.) ,' The House at twenty miuiites past six ad journed. impeachment ITnder the Constitution. The views and opinioiis of the fathers of the Republic on the subject of impeaching and re moving from offlce the Executive of the govern ment, may be readily gathered from the following debate in the Federal Convention: In the Convention which formed the Constitu tion of the '(Jnited States, on June 2, 1787, Mr. WilUamson, seconded by Mr. Davie, moved that the President be removed on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty, whioh was agreed to. ' On July 20, Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Gouvemeur Morris moved to strike out this provision. Mr. Rnekney observed that the President ought not to be impeachable while in offlce. , Mr. Davie said:- If he be not impeachable while in office, he will spare no efforts or meana what ever to get himself re-elected. He considered this as an essential security for the good behavior of the Executive. Mr. Williamson concurred in making the Exectitive impeachable while in office. Mr. GouVerneur Morris said:— He can do no criminal act without coadjutors, who maybe pun ished. In case he should be re-elected that will be a sufflcient proof qf his innocence. Besides, who is to impeach?' /» the impeachment to suspend hisfunciianst If Itia not, the m^scMef will go on. If it is, the impeachijieut will be nearly equiva lent to a displacement, aud,-wiU render the Exe cutive dependent on those who are to impeach. Colonel Maspn remfirk;ed::^No point is of more Importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above jOstioe? Aboveall, ShaU that man be obove it who can commit the most extensive injustice? When great crimes were committed, he was for punishing the principal as well as the coadjutors. There had been much debate and difliculty as to the mode of choosing the Executive. He approved of that which had been adopted; at first, namely, of referring the appointment to the National;. Legislature. .One objection againat electors waa the danger of their being corrupted by their can didates, and , this furnished a peculiar reason In favor of impeachnlents while in office. Shall thn man who has practiceii corruption, and by thai means procured his appointment in the first In stance, be suffered to escape punishment by re peating his guilt? . - ' Dr. Franklin was for retaining the clause as fa vorable to the ExeoutiiVe,., . History furnishes one example of a first magistrate- being brought foi» maliy to justice. Everybody cried out against this as unconstitutional. TVhat was the practice betore this in oases where the Chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why, recourse waa had to assassination, in which he was uotonlyi deprived of his life, but of; the opportunity of vindicating his character. It would be the best way, therefore, to provide in .the Constitution for the regular punishment ,. of the Executive where.his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal where he should be un justly accused. Mr. Gouverneur Morris would admit cormp' tion and some other few offenses to be such ' aa ought to be impeaehablfe; but he thought the cases ought to be enumerated ahd defined. Mi-. Madison thought it' indispehsable that some, provision should be made for defending the cpm; , munity against the incapacity, negligence or per fidy of the Chief ,M;agistrate. The limitation oi the,period,of his^ei-vice was nota sufficient se-. curity. He inight lose his capacity after his ap- . pointment. He might pervert his administration ¦ into a scheme of peculation or oppression. Hfe- might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the executive magistracy was very dis tinguishable from that of the' Legislature or any' other public body holding offlces of limited dura tion. It could not be presumed that all or even the majority of the members of an assembly , would either lose tbeir' capacity for discharging ' or be bribed to betray their trust. ' Besides the restraints of their personal Integrity and hondr, the'difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a, security to the public. And if, one or a few membera only should, be seduced, the sonndness of the remaining members would ma,intaln the integrity and fidelity of the body; In'thecase of the executive magistracy, which waa to be administered by a single mau, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the com pass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the repubUc. Mr. Pitfckney did notsee the necessity of im- . peaehments. He was sure ' they ought not to issue from the Legfslathre, who would, iu that ca^ hold them as a ro(J oyer the Executive, and by UMt means effectually destroy his independ?. IjiIPEACHMENT OP 'ANDREW JOIINSON. If ence." His ^eviaionaiy. power, in particulari would be rendered altogether, insigniflcant. Mr. Gerry urged the necessity of impeachment. A'^ood magistrate will not f^ar them. . 'A badione ougtt to be kept in fear of them.. He hoped ithe maxim would, not be adopted here that .the Chief Magistrate could do no ^ro^ng. Mr. Rufus King thought that unless the Execu tive was to hold his' place during good, behavior, he ought not to be liable to imppachment.i . Mr. ftandoiph said the propriety of impeach-. ments was a favorite principle with him; Guilt wherever found, ougl^t to fee punished. The Ex ecutive wiU have great opportunities for abusing his power, particularly iu tinie of war, when the mjlitai-y force, and in some respects,, the public money, will be in his Jianda. Should no punish ment be provided, it wUl be u-regularly inflicted iy tumults and insui^reptions. < ; Dr. FrankUn mentioned, the case of the Prince of Orange during the late war. Afl arrangement was made between France aud HoUand, by which their two fleeta were to unite at a certain time and place. The Dutch fleet did not appear. Eveiybody began to wonder at it. At length it was auspected that the Stadtholder was at the bottom of the matter. This; suspicion pi-evailed ^ore and more. Tet as he could not be im peached, and no regular examination took place,- he remained In his office; and strengthening his own party, as the party opposed Mm became formidable, he gave birth to the most violent animosities and conlentionsT^fiad he beeh im peachable, a reguljal" and peaceable Inquiry would bave taken placej and he would, if guilty; have been duly punished; if innocent, restored to the confldence of the pubUc. ' ¦ After further remarks by-Mr. 'King, Mr. Wilson and; Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Gouverneur Morris said his opinion had been changed by tlie arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of imipeachment, if the Executive was to continue for any length of time in' dfiioe. Our Executive waa Uke a magisti-ate haVihg; a hereditaly interest in his office. He maybe bribed by a greater Interest to • betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing our flrst magis trate in loreign pay, without being able to guard' against it by displacing him. , One would think the King of England well seemed against bribery. He has, as it were,- -a fee simple in the whole kingdom. Tet Charles II was bribed by Louis XIV. The Executive ought, therelore, tobe im peached for treachery. Corrupting hia electors and incapacity were other causes of impeach ment. For tho latter he should be punished, hot aa a man, but aa an officer, and punished only by deo-radatlon trom his offlce. This magistrate is not the king, but the prime minister. The people ore the king. • When we make hhn anienable to justice, however, we Should take care to pirdvlde some mode that wUl not make hJm dependent On the Legislature. . On the 6th day of Septeniber. the clause refer ring to. the ;Senate the trial of impeacli-ment against the President; for treason and bribery, waS taken up.- .- -- Colonel Mason said:— 'Why is the provision re strained to treason and bribery only? Treason, as defined in the Constitution, will not reach many great and dangerous offenses. Hastings is not guilty of treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be treason, aa above de fined. As bills of attainder, which have saved the British Constitutio'n, are forbiclden, it is the more necessary to extend the power of impeach ments. He moved to add, after "bribery," " or maladministration." Mr. Gerry seconded him. Mr. Madison objected. So vague a term wiU be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the ,Senate. Mr. Gouverneur Morris remarked: — ^It wUl not be put in force, and can do no harm. »An election every.four years wiU prevent maladministration. Colonel Mason withdrew " maladministration" and, substituted ."other high orimes and misde meanors against the State." And the proposition as amended was adopted., ,,llr, Madison objected to atrial of the President by tlie Senate, especially as he Waa to be im«! peached by .the.pther branch of the -Legislature, and for any aet which might bc called, a misde-i moanpr, . He would prefer the Supreme Court for the trial . of impeachments; or, rather, a tribunali of whioh that should form a part. Mr. Gpuvernejir Morris thought no other tribu nal than the Senate could be trusted. The Su preme Court were too few in number, and might be warped or corrupted. He was against-.a do pendence of the Executive on the Legislature,; considering legislative tyranny the great danger to be apprehended; but there could be no daugoii that the Senate would say untruly, on their oaths that the President .-was guilty of crimes ¦ or faults, ' especially as in four years he can be turned out. After some further debate, the .clause was amended by adding .the words "an,d„every mem ber shall be on oath," and as adppted reads aa fol-, lows: — . " The Senate of the United States shaU havo power to try all impeachments, but no person shall be convicted withotit the concurrence of two- thirds of the members present, and every member ShaU be on oath." . I'..'. , Xbe, Senate Notitiedo On the day' folio-wing the passage of the Im peachment Resolution (Tuesday, Februaiy 25), the Hotise of Representatives offlciaUy notifled the Senate of Its action. - WhUe Senator Garrett Davis (Ky.) was address-' ing the Chair, the Doorkeeper announced a com mittee of- the House of Representatives, and Messrs. Stevens and Bingham' entered and stood facing the President pro tem., whUe a large num ber of members of the House ranged themselves in a semi-circle behind. 18 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. When order was restored, Mr. Stevens read, il a flrm voice, as follows: — , . Mr. P;esident:— In obedience to the order of the House of RepresentatiKea, we bave appeared before you; and in the name of tbe Hnuae of Representatives and ot all the people'nf the United States, We do im- Eeach Andrew Johnson, President of. the .United tatps, of high crimes and misdemeanors in otBce. And we further inform the Senate that the House of Kepr.esentativps will, in dse time, exhibit particular article j of impeachment against him, and make good - the same, Aud in tbeir uanie we demand . that the Senate take due order for tbe appearace of the said Andrew Johnson to, answer to the said impeachment. \ The President pro tem. — The Senate wiU take bfder in the premises. Mr. Stevens was then furnished with a chair, and sat in the spot whence be had addressed tbe Chair. . Mr. HowAED (Mich.) addressed the Chair, but Mr. Davis insisted that he had the floor, hav ing given way only for the reception of a message from the House. .; The Chair said the Senator 'certainly had the floor. Mr. Davis said: — ^"Mr. President, I was about to renew my remarks, when Mr. Howard aslced whether this was not a question of privilege ?" The Chair did not know, that there was any rule about it. , Mr. DAVis.^Mr. President, no question of privilege. -; Mr. Howard.— I call the Senator to order, and claim that this is a privUeged question. The President pro iem.- There is a question of order raised, which the Chair wUl submit to the Senate for its decision. Mr. Davis- I wUl just ask— The President pro tem. — The question of order must be settled before the Senator can proceed. . Mr. Johnson — Mr. President, I should like to know what the question of order Is. The President jiro tem. — The question is whether the Senator must give way to a privUeged ques tion. ^ Mr. Howard said the House of Representa tives having sent a committee announcing that in due time they will present articles of Impeach ment agaiust Andrew Johnson, President of the tfuited States, and -asking that tl^e Senate take order in reference thereto, the message of the House had beeu received, and the subject-matter was now befprpithe Senate, and his contemplated' motion was the appointment of a select com- g^ittee to whom it should be referred, and he thought that was a question of privilege. Mr. Davis repUed that he had given way in deference to the universal usage estabUshed by courtesy between the two Houses fpr the recep tion of a message from the House,. When that mesaage was deUvered, he liad a right to resume the floor, and the Senator could not take it from him to makea privUeged niotion, or any motion. Mr. Edmunds thought the Senator from Kentucky was entitled to the floor, while he did. not admit the propriety as a matter of taste, or thedeUcacy of his insisting, npon U. . (Laughter.) Mr. Davis preferred to settle such questions, for himself, without regard to the Senator's' opinion or judgment. Had he been asked to yiel^ the floor, he would not have hesitated for an In stant, but When it was attempted to take^ the floor from hiin, he denied the right to it; and the: Chair haviug decided in his fSvor, he Vould now complete his remarks. They were not long. (Laughter.) Mr. Conness hoped the Senator from Ken tucky, always contentions, would yield his un doubted right on this oceaaion. Mr. Davis said it must flrst be decided by the Senate whether he had the right or not, and then he would waive or not as seemed proper. The Chair put the xjuestion, and the Senate voted to allow Mr. Davisto continue. * Mr. Davis, with much cheerfulness— I now yield the floor for the purpose indicated by thei Senator from Michigan. (Laughter.) Mr. Howard (Mich.) offered the foUowing:— Resolved, That the message of the Hopse of Reprw Sentatives relative to the impea,chme,nt ,of Andrew. Johnson, President of the United States, be referred to a select committee of seven, to .consider the saoifi and report thereon. Mr. Bayard (Del.) had no objectidn 'to tlM' resolution, but would caU attention to the fact that thi^ was a mere notice that the House of Re presentatives intended to impeach the President. Impeachment could not be acted upon until ar-' tides of impeachment were presented, and the Senate had no aujiiilrity as a legislative body;tO act in relation to a question of impeachment, the Constitution requiring them to be organized into a court, with the Chief 'Justice President when the question of impeachment . came before them.' Untu that time they could entertain no motion in regard to the f^et; that, the court would be called upon to make its own orders, nnder thS Constitution aud laws. Mr, Howard said the course pointed out hy the' Senator was not according to. the precedent furnished b; lyj^ case of Judge(;Feck, in the year 1830. flB oif^e ' according to the Journalaot the Sei^p lose t^ef^^e was brought from the to betr '''''*^^^ ^y ^^- Buchanan and mi.Tio.1 \'™^o of their members, and cir pi;; \ Of ac-^'^S*, words :- ¦jlsient:- Wp have been directed. In ths louse of JRepreeentativeBand of'all the . United\ States, .to impeach James U. c.rthe nistfict Court of tbe United Stales ;:t of Missouri, of- high misaemeanors in ,. acquaint the Senate that the Ueiise will, exhibit particular articles of impeachment, against Mim, nnd make^good the same." -Vve have also been directed to demand that tbe Senate take;order for the appe.arance of the said James H. Peck lo an swer to said impeachment, '* and they withdrew. ¦'The Senate proceeded to consider th^ last men-' tioned message, and, on motign of Mr. Tazewell, It was resolved that it be referred to a select committee, to consist of thi;ee members, tb consider and report thereon. Ordered, that Mr, TazeiWell, Mr.' Webster and Mr. Bell be the committee." , Ttet was a preliminary proceeding, and this case was precisely simUar to It. Mr. PoMEROy (Kan.) said the mode of prelV- IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 19 miliary proceeding had always been precisely the Bame as ifl' the case just read. Wheu the mana gers appeared on the part of the House of Repre sentatives, they presented their articles to the Court of Impeachment. This,' however, was only the presentation— the notice always given to the Senate. Mr. JoHNSOK (Md.) had no doubt the mode pro posed by the Senator from Michigan (Mr. How ard) was proper. He believed tb«.t In all preced ing cases, a committee had been appointed to take into consideration the message received from the House, and to recommend such measures as were deemed advisable; and be kuew no reason \rhy that should, not be done here. Perhaps, however, St would be more advisable tb delay the resolution for a day, and let the matter be disposed of by the jSenate. Mr. CoNKLFNG (N. T.), referring to the case of the impeachment by the Senate of Judge Hum phreys, of Tennessee, suggested that the words **to be appointed by the Chair," be included in the resolution. • Mr. Howard accepted the amendment. ^he resolution was unanimously adopted. Articles ot Impeacliinent* Meanwhile the Houae Committee appointed to draw up the articles of impeacment examined nu merous witnesses and proceeded cai^efuUy to pre pare the charges and specifications against the Executive, and on thfe last day of February they reported the results of theh^ labors as follows: — Articles eathihited bp like House of Representatives of the United States^ In tfie name of themselves and all the veople of the United States, against Andrew Johnson, J^esident of the Unittd States, as maintenance arid sup port of their impeachment against him for high crimes andmAsd6m.eanor in o_pice: — Article 1- That said Andrew JohnHon, President of ^he United Siates, on the 2l8t day of Pebnjary, in the year of onr Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, anmindfnl of the high duties of hie oath of office ahd of the requirements of, the Constitution, that he shonld take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, in Tiolatipii.:Qf tihe Consti-^ tution and laws ofthe United Statea, issue an order in writing for the removal* of Edwin M. St&oton from the Office of Secretary of} the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having heen, therefor, duly appointed and commissioued by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, of the .United States as each Secretary ; and said Andrew Joh nsqn, President of the Uuited States, on the 12th day of Adgust, in the year of our Lord 1S6T, aud during the recess of aaid Senate, having suspended by his order Edwin M. StanioD from said office, a;nd within twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of said Senate, on the 12ih day of December, in tbe year last aforesaid, having reported to saic) Senate aupb suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action iu the case* and the name of the pertfoi de^ig'uated to perform the duties of such qffice tempoi^rlly, unidl the nest meet ing of the S,enat7, and said Senate thereafterwards, onthelStli day of Jannary, in the year of our Lord 1868, haying duly .eoueidered the evid6n«e and reasons reported by s&id Aodj'ew Jotmson for said suspen- eio)!, did refuse to concur in said suBpension; where by and by force ofthe provisions of ah act entitled '*a:i ac^ regulating the tenureof civil offices," passed March 2, 186^, said Edwin M;.^^tan,tpn did forthwith resume the ftinctione dfhis office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson bad then and 'there due notice, and the said Edwin M., Stanton, by reaaon of the premises, onl said Slst day of ,Febiuary, was lawfully entitled to h*Id said oflice of Secretary "for the' Department of War, which said order for the removal ox said EUwin i M. Stanton is, in substance, as follows, that is to say:— ExEOUTiVB Mansion, WASffiNOTOa', D. C:, Feb. 21, 1868. ^ —Sir :— By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, &B President, by the Oonstitution and lawB of the Uoitoa States, you are hereby removed from the office of Se? cretary for the Department of War, and your functions as BUch will terminate upon receipt of this communication. You wUl transfer to Brevet Major-General L. Thomaa, Adjutant-General of the Army, who haa thin day been au- thovized and empowered to act ae Secretary of War ad in-^ tervm, all books, papers and other public property now in your custody ana chajwe, Keapectfiilly, vourB, ' f^ ¦ ANUREW JOHNSON. To the Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War. Which order wos nnlaw|ally issued, and with intent then are there to violate'tbe act entitled "An act re gulating the tenure , of certain civil offices," passed Match 2, 1867, and, contrary to the provisions of said act, and in violation thereof, and contrary to the pro visions of the Constitutipn of tbe United States, and without, the advice and consent of the Senate of the tJuited States, the said Senate then and there being in session, to remove said E. M. Stantpn from thd oflSce of Secretary for the Department of War, whereby said Andrew Johnson, 1' resident of the United States,' did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high mis demeanor in office. Article 2. That "^n the 2l8t day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District bf Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of tbe high duties of his oath of office, aud in violation'of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to -the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of cer tain civil offlces," passed March 2, 1867, without the advice and consent of tbe Senate, then aud there being in session, and without authority of law, did appoint oneL. Thomas to be Secretary of War adinte^ rvm,. by issuing to said Lorenzo Thomas a letter of anthoilty, in substance as follows, that is to say :— Executive Mansiojt, Washington, D. C, Feb. 21, 1868, —Sir :— The Hon. Kdwin M. Stanton having been thia day removed frora office as Secretory of the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act aa Secretary of War arf interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaiuiug to that office. Mr. Stanton has been inatrueted to transfer to you all the records, booka, papera and other public property now in his custody and cliarge. ReBpectfHily yours, ANDREW JOHNSON. To Brevet Mafbr-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 gailty of a high misdemanor in oflSce. Articles. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the Slst day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred aud sixty-eight, at Washington in the District of Colum bia, did commit, aud was guilty of a bigh misde meanor in offlce, in this:— That without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then- .ind there in session, be did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War. ad interim, without the advice andtionsentof the Se nate, and in violation of the Constitution of tbe United States, no vacancy having happened in said offlce of Secretary for the Department, of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in said offlce at the tijne, and which said appointment so made by AndreW|iiohnsou of said Lorenzo Thomas is in substance as fallows, that is to say :^ ExEODTrvE MaWsiok. Washington, D. C, Feb. 21, 1868, —Sir:— The Hon. E. M. Stanton having been this day re moved from otfice as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War od interiTn^ and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton haa been instructed to transfer te you all the records, books, papers, and other pnblic property mow ia his custody and charge. Kl^^fJglVjotN SdN. To Brevet Msjor-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General United StileBArmy, Washington, D. C. Article 4. That said Andrew Johnson, PreBidenf of the United States, nnmindfal ofthe highduties of bi« office; and of his oath of office, in riolation bf the Con stitution ina laws of the United States, on the 2l8t day of Febrnary, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlaw fully conspire with oB6 Loten^a Thomas, and with Ptbei persons to tb< Honse of Eepresentatives an- 2f0' IMPEACHMENT OP 'ANDREW JOHNSON. ^n#n, with intent; 'by intimidation and threats, to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there. the Secretary for, the Departpient ,ef ,War, dnly an- pointed nnder the laws of tlie United States, froin holding said offlce of Secretary for the Department of War, contrary to and in violation of the Constitntion of tbe United States, and of the provisions of an act Entitled "An act to define and pnnieb certain couspi- tacies," approved July 31, 1861, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was.guilty of bigh crime in office. Article 5. That said Andrew JWbnSon,' President of the United States,, unmindful of the bieb duties of his office and of bis oath of offlce, on the" 21st df Febru ary, in the year of our Lord one thonSaiid eight bnn- flred and sixty-eight, and on divers others days and times in said year before the ZSth day ot said Febru ary, at Washington, in tbe District of Cnlumbia, did tiilawfnlly conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persona in tlie House of Representatives unknown, by force to prevent and hinder the execu tion btan act entitled " An act regulating; the tenure of certain civil offlces," passed March 2. l'8'6T,abdin pur suance of said conspiracy, did attempt to prevent B. M. Sranton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, diily anptiinted and coramis- Bioned under the laws of the United States, from hold ing said office, whereby the said Andrew Jphnson, i'resident of tbe. United States, did then, and there commit and was gailty of high misdemeanor in office. Articles, That Andrew Johnson, .President of the ¦ United Statea, unmindful ot the duties of his high ttffice and of his oath of offlce, on the 2l8t day of Feb ruary, in the year of our Lord 1868,,at Washington, in the Districl of Columbia, did, unlawfully consuire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take and possess the property of the United States .it the War Department, contrary to the provisions of an act enti- tljed. "Au act to de^ne and' punish certain conspiraT cies," approved July- 31, 1861, and witb intent to vio late and disregard an act eutitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," o'nfised march 2, 1667, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President ofthe United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office. Article T. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United Slates, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year ofour Lord 1868, and on divers ether days in said year, before the 29tb day of said February, at Washington,' in the District of Columoii, Aid unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas ,to prevent and hinder tbe execution of au act of the' United States, entitled "An act regulating, the. 'teuure of certain civil offlce," passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did' unlawfully a'ttenipt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being- Secretary for the Departmeut of War, uuder the laws of the United States; from holding said offlce to which he had been dnly appointed and eommissioned, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President" of the Uuited Stares, did there and then commit and was guilty of a bigh misdemeanor in office. Article 8. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, ilnmindful of the high duties of bis office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of Feb ruary, iu tbe year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire wilh one Lorenzo Thomas, to •seize, take and possess the property ot the United States in the War Depart ment, with intent to violate aud disiggard the act en- ' titled "An act regulating tbe tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the Uuited States, did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in offlce. Article 9. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 22d day of February, in tbe year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, iu tbe District of .Columbia, in disriegard of the Constitution aud the law of GoBgt-ess duly enacted, as Obmmander-in-Ohief; did bring before himself, theu and there, William H. Emory, a Major-General by brevet in the Army of tbe ' United States, actually in command of the Depart ment of Washington, and the military forces there for, and aid then and there, as Commander-in-Chief, declare to, and instruct said Emory, that part of a Jaw ?' ."'* United States, passed March 2, 1867, en titled 'an act for making appropriations for the ?2?i'°"P- the army for the year ending Jane 30, 1808, and for other purposes," eepecially the eecood Becuonibwe^, Wliich ptovideniaaioaB etbn tbiaee, thit all orders and instructions relating to milital^' operationa issued by tbe President and Secretary, of War, shall be iisoed through the General of the' Army, aiid iu case of his inability, through the next in rank w^a unconstitutional, *nd .,ip contra«n-, tion of the commission of, Emory; and' therefore not' binding on bihi, as an offlcer ih the Army of t~he United, States, which said pi;ovlsjone of law had heen therefore duly and legally promulgated by General Order for the government and direct tion of tbe Army: 'Of the United 'Sbates, as the said Andrew Johnson then and th,ere well knew, wilh ia; tent thereby to induce said Emory, in his offlcial capa city aa Command»rbfthe Department of Washington^ to violate tlje pnivisions of, aaid act, and to take aufi receive, act upon and obey sucb orders as he, the said Andrew Johnson, might make and give, and which ahould npt be iseuedthrough tbe General of the Army of the United States, accor4ing to ,tbe provisions ot said a'ct, whereby aaid Andrew Johnson, President of the United . States,' did then and there jCommit, and was guilty of ^ high pisdemeanor in office; andthe House of Kepresentatives, by protestation,' saving to themselves tbe libertyof exbibitiou, at any time here after, any further articlea of their accusation or inas peachment against the said Andrew JShnson, Presi dent of the'Uutted Statiss, and also of rSpllying to his answers, which will make up the articles herein pre ferred agaiust hira, and of ofTering proof to the same ¦ ahd every part thereof, and to all and every other arti cle, accusation; i or' ^impeachment which shall be ' ex hibited oy them as the case shall require, do demand that tbe said Andrew Johnson may be'put to anewet the highlcriihes aud misdenieaa»fe< in' offlce herein charged. against him, and t.hat,su<;h , procfjedings, ex- amibafibns, triala and judgments may 'be thereupon bad and given as may be agreeable to law and justice. An animated debate sprang up on the question of the adoption of the a'bove artiolies, which was continued until March 2, when they were adopted) and Speaker Colfax announced as managers oif the impeachment trial on tlie part of the House, Messrs. Thaddeus Stevens, B,!". Butler, John H, Bingham, George S. Boutwell, J, F, 'Wilson, T. ¦Williams and John A, Logan. . It was then ordered that the articles agreed to by the House to be exhibited in its name and in. the name of all the people of the United Stat^aJ' against Andrew Johnson, President of the Uniteff States, in maintenance of the impeachment against him for tigli crimes and misdemeanors in' office, be carried to the Senate by the managers appointed to conduct snch impeachment. Oeneral Butler's fSupplementary Ar* tide. On the 2d of March, General Bu^er proposed' an additional article, but. as the vote on the pre vious articles was taken on that day, flnal action was postponed Until the Sd, when General Butler again reported it, remarking that, with but* single exception, the managers favored the adop tion pf the article. He strongly urged the recep tion of the charges heihad prepared, saying:—^ "The articles already adopted presented only^ the hone and sinew of the ofi'enses of Andrew Jolmson, He wanted to clothe (that hone and sinew with flesh and blood, ahd' to show ^lim, before the country as the quivering sinner that he is, so that hereafter, when posterity came jSio examine these proceedings, it inight ,"not hafei cause to wonder that the only offense chargad|. against Andrew Johhson was a merely technicM' one. He would have him go down to posteilwy as the representative maA of this age, with a laba*' upon him that 'wouliiL stick to bim tliroogh ai^" time." ¦ IMPEACHMENT OP AlfDREW JOHNSON. 21 .The article was adopted. Teas, 87j nays, 41 — the only Republicans voting ih the negative he^ipg J Messrs. Ash\ey (Nev.), Coburn, Griswold, Laflin, Mallory, Marvin, Pomeroy, Smith, Wilson, (la.), Wilson (Ohio), Windom.fmd Woodbridge. Tliis 'article was made the teiith on the liat, and is as follows: — Article 10. ThUsaid Andrew Johneon, President of tbe United States, unmindful of the hi^h dutiei nf his hi?h offic.e and tbe dignity and proprieties thereof, au,d of the harmony and courtesiee, whiph ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and -JegielatiTc branches of the Government of the United Stntes, depisninf: and iutendin? to set aside the rifrht- ful authoriiits and powcrp of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, haired, contempt and reproacp, thjs Congreaa of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the r&gard and respect o'f all'the good people of the United Staten for the Congress and the legislative power t^iereof, whjch all officers of the government iOn^ht invioUMy to preserve and maiutain, , and . to excite the odiam and resentment bf all good people of the X7nited States agaliist' Congress and the laws by it duly and cqnsLitutionally enapted; and in, pnrsaanqe of his said design and intent, openly and publicly, and before divers assemblages of citizen^ of the , .United StateSej convened in diva's parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as tbe Chief JMagistrateof^the'Unitim States, did^'on the eighteenth day of Angust, in the year of our Lord one tnuusand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days "ahd times.'as WeU belOre as afterwards, make and de clare, with a lond voice, certain intemperate, inflam matory and scandalous h^an?ueB,,jtn,dj therein utter ' loud threats and .bitter m(>QaceB, as well against Con gress as tbe laws' of the United St.-tte5 duly enactrd thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laii^btier of the raul- . titddes Ifaen a*setQhl^d in hearing, which are set forth in the several specl)lcations,hereinafter, written, in eubstance aud effect, that is to say: — TUB BPKOIFIOATIOMB. ' ,., ''Specification First. In this, that at Washington, i^ tbe District of Columbia, in the Executive Mansion, "'to a eommittce of Gitizena who called npon the Prcsi- dfintof the Uuited Stales, spealciug of and concern ing the Congress of the United Statev, heretofore, to wit:— Ob the ISCfa day^ of August, in the year of our ~Xoi-d, 1866, in a loud voice, declare in eubstance and effect, among other things, that iato say:— ¦ '* 'So far as the Executive Department of the govern ment is concerned, the effurt has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to ponr oil into the wouuds which were consequent upon the struggle, aiid, to apenk in a common phrase, to prep^rngress had taken mnch pains to poison the constituents against him, what basCongr^ssdone? Have they done anything to re store tbe union of tbe States? No. On the contrary, they bad done everything to prevent it; and because he stood now where he did l^hen the Bebellion com menced, he had been denounced as a traitor. Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But Gongrcps, factious and domineering, bad tradertaksn to poison the minds of the American people,' " Speiiifibation Third. In this case, that at St. Loni», in the State of Missouri, heretofore to wit :— On the Sth day of September, in the y«jir of our Lord 1S66, be fore a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the TJnjted State^, speaking of ' acts 'concisming the Congress of tqc United States', did, in a loua voice, declare in sub- Btatce and effect, among other things, that is to say:- *' Qo on : perhiipff if yon had a word or two on the . subj'ect of !Ncw Orl'eaus you might understand mora aboUt.it than you do,' and if you will go back and ad- certain the cause of the riot at New Qrleaos, perhaps you will not he so prompt in calling ont ":Ne>v Orleans," If yon will take up the riot of i^ew Orleans and trkce it back to its sonree and its immediate canse, yon will flnd out who was re sponsible for the blood that wap shed there, ^f you will take up the riot al New Orleans and- traCe it back to the<- Radical- Congress, - yon will find that the riot at* New Orleans was snb'stantially planned. if you will take up the proceedings in their cau cuses you will nnderetand that they knew that-# conveution was tp be called ^hich waa extinct by its powers having expired; that it was said thatthe iil- tentioa was that a new government was to oe orgail- izea, and on the organizatlou of that goverument the intention was to enfrapchise one portion of the popu lation, called the colored population, and who had been emancipated, and at the same time disfran chise w|)ite men.^Whep you design to talk about New Orleans yon ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read tbe speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday be fore that convention 8at,'yo)i will fiPd that speectiea were made incendiary in their character, excitic'g that portion of the population— the black popnlation —to arm themaelves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that convention did assenl- ble in violation of law, and the intention of that co>il- veution was to supersede the organized authorities in the State of Louisiana, which had been organized bv the governmeut of the Uuited States, and every man engaged in that 'rebellion, in that convention, with the intention of sup^tseding and apturning tbe civil go vernment which had been recognised by the Govern ment of the United States. I ^ay that he waa a traltoo to the CoDStitntiou of the United States, and hence you find that another rebellion .was commenced, hav ing its oriein in the Kadical Congress. So mnch for the Kew Orleans riOt'. And there was the cause ahd the or'igin of the blood that was shed, and every drop pf blood that was shed is upon their skirts and they are responsible. I could test this thiner a little closer, but will not do it here to-night. But when you talk aboui the causes and consequences. that resulted from pro- ceedinss of that kind, perhaps, as I have been intro duced here and you have jpirovoked qnestiuus of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell yoa a few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical Congress in cuunection with New Orleans and the extension of the elective franchise. I know that I bave been traduced and abused. I know it has come in advauce of me here, m elsewhere, tbati bavie attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in reaisting laws that were intended tb be forced upon the goverij* ment; thati had exercised that power; that I had abaudoned the party that elected me, and that I was a U'aixor, because I exercised tbe veto power in at tempting, and did arrest fer a time, that which waa called a "Freedmen's Bureaa"hill. 7es, that I was a traitor. And I have been traduced ; 1 have been slan- dvred; I have been maligned; I have been called Judas Iscariot. and all , that. Now, my countryraen, hereto-night, itis very Aasy to indulge in epithets; It is easy to call a man a Judas, ana cry out traitos^ 22 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. bat when, he ie called, upon to. give arei^ments and facts he is very ofteo foand wnoting. Judas Iscariot— Judas I There wm a Judae, aqd he was one of the twelve Apoilles. O, yes, the twelve Apostles had a Christ,, and he never ewuid have had a Judas unless he had twelve Apostles, (f I have played the Jiidns who has been my Christ that I have played .the Julias with? Was it Thnd. Stevent? Wae it Wendell Phillips? Was It Charles Sumner? They are the men that stop and compare themselres with the Savior, and evejybody t)iat differs with them in opi nion, and tries.to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarions policy is to be denounced as a Judae. Well, let me say to yon, if jron will etimd by me in this ac tion, if you will stand hiy me in tryinc to give the people a fair chance— sofdiers and citizens— to partici pate in these offices, God be willing, I wiU kick . thejn out. I will kicfe them ont just as fast as I can. tet me say to you, in concluding, that what I h ive said is what I intended tosay ; I was uot provoked into this, and care not for their menaces, tue taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to be bnllied Hy enemies, nor overawed by my friends. But, 76od willinsr, with yonr help, I will veto l;heir measures 'Whenever any of them corae to me.' " Which said ntterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in anv, are peculiarly Indecent and nnhecomine in ihe Chief Masistrate of the United Slates, by meapa whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high offlc^ of the President ofthe United States into contempt, ridienie aprt dis grace, to the great scandal of , all good "citizens, whereby snid Andrew Johnson, President of the Tfnited States, did commit, and, was then and there gailty ofa high naisdemeanor In office. The Eleventh Article. On the same day Mr. Bingham offered still another article, 'stating that it had received the unanimous vote of the managers, and he moved the previous question on ita adoption. After slight objections from Messrs. Brooks an^Eld- ridge it was adopted by the same vote as the previous articles. . Article 11. That the said Andrew Johnaon, President ofthe United States, anmiudful of tbe high dutiea of his office and his oath of office, snd in disregard nC the Coqstitatioh and laws of the United Statee,. did, IheretofoiS, to wit :— Oa the ISth day of Angust, 1866, at the city of Washington, and iu the D^.'^t^ict of Co- Inmliia, by public speech, declare aud affirm in sub stance, that the Thirty-ninth Conirresa of the United States was not a Congrese ofthe United Sjtates author "rized by the Constitution to exurciee legislative power nnder the sf^me, bnt on the contrary, was a Con-jress Of only part of the States, thereby d.eu vlug and intend ing to deny, that the legislation of !siud Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Ajidrew John son, except in uo far as he eaw nt to approve the same, " and also thereby denying the power of the said Thirty- ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Consti tution gf the United States. And ip.pnrsuanceof said declaration, the said Andrew Jphnsqn,, President pf the United State::', afterwards, to wit:— O'n the 2fst day of February, 1863, at the city of Washington, D. C, did, unla'wfnlTy aud in disregard of the requirement^of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully ex^ciited, attempt to prevent the execution of «n act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of cer- "tain civil offices,''. passed Murch 2, 1867,idBfor the more efficient governqieqtiot tpe Rebel States," passed March 2, 1867. Whereby the said An- ¦¦drew Johnson, President o£ the United States, did Ij^eu, to wit, on the 2l8t da; of I'ebraar;, 1869, at thp city of WashineCOn, commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. Impeachment Articles Read to tbe Senate. On the 4th of March, 1868, at five minutes past one o'clock, members of the House entered tha Senate, preceded hy the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate. As they stepped inside the bar of the Senate, the Sorgeant-at-ArmS announced, in a loud voic?, "The Managers of the House of Re presentatives, to present articles of impeach ment." The managers walked to the front part of the Senate Chamber, close to the President's desk, and took seats, while the members of the House radged themselves around the seats of the Senators. After silence was restored, Mr. Bingham arose and said, holding the articles in his hand : — "The Managers of the House of Representatives, by order of the House of Representatives, are ready at the bar of the Senate, if it will please the Senate to hear them, to present the articles of impeachment, in maintenance of the impeach ment preferred against Andrew Johnson, Presi dent of the United States, by the House of Repr6» sentatives." Hon. B. F. Wade, President of the Senate, then said:— "The Sergeant-at-Arms will make proclamation.'' The Setgeaiit-at-arms then said:-' -"Hear y$l tear ye ! hear ye ! All persons are commanded to keep silence,, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States, articles of impeach ment against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States." , Mr. BiNQHAM then rose and commenced read ing the ai'ticles. Every person kept perfectly still while Mr. Bingham was reading the articles. The galleries were closelv packed, and hundreds of people stood in the halls and corridpr^,' unable to get even a glimpse of the inside proceedings. At the conclusion of the reading of the article?, which occupied thirty minutes. President Wadb said: — "The Seuate will takedue order and cog nizance of the articles pf in^peachmcnt, of whi6h due notice will be given by the Senato to the House of Representatives." The House then withdrew, vvith Mr. Dawes as Chairman of the House Committee of the Whole on the State of the Uuion, to the hall bf the House. Openings ot the Trial. On the day following tbe presentation of tbe articles of impeachment to the Senate, the trial was formally opened. At the! conclusion of the morning hour. Vice President Wade announced that aU legislative and executive business of the Senate is ordered to cease, for thefiurpose of pro ceeding to business connected with the impeach ment of the Presideiit of th? United States. Ths chair is vacated tor that purpose. The Chief Justice then advanced up the aisle, clad i^u his official robe, assisted by Mr. Pomeroy, IMPEACHMENT OE ANDREW JOHNSON. 28 .(ibairman of the committee Appointed fbf fhat purpose, with Judge Nelson, of the Supreme Court, on his right ; Messrs. Buckalew and Wil son, the otiier members of the committee, bring ing up the rear, with members of the House; who stood behind the bar of the Senate. The .Chief Justice, having ascended to the Pre sident's chair, said, in a measured and impressive ¦voice: — "Senators — ^In obedience to notice, I have ap peared to join with you in forming a Court of Impeachment for the trial of the President of the United States, and I am now ready to take oath." Oath of the Chiet Justice. The foUowing oath was then administered to the Chief Justice by Judge Nelson: — .1. "I do solemnly swear that in alt things appertaining' to the trial ofthe impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, 1 will do impartial justice, according to the Constitntion and laws. So help me Sod." ¦ The Chief Justice then said: — Senators, the' oath WiU now be administered to the Senators as they WiU be called by the Secretary in succession, Xhe Senators Sworn. The Secretary called the roll, each Senator ad vancing in turn and taking the oath prescribed in the rules as given above. The only Senators ab sent were Doolittle (Vt;), Patterson (N. H.), Saulsbury (Del.) and Edmunds (Vt.) Hon. D. V.'Wa.ae Challengred. When the name of Senator Wade was caUed, Mr. HuNbRicKs rose and put the question to the presiding offlcer, whether Senator from Ohio, being the person who would succeed to the Pre- sidential offlce, was entitled to sit as a judge in the case. Remarlcs of Hir. Sherman. Mr. Sherman argued that the Constitution it self settled that question.' It provided that the presiding officer should not preside on the trial of the President, but being sUent as to his right to be a member of the court, it foUowed by impli cation that he had the riglit to tie a member ofthe court, each State was entitled to be represented by two Senators. The Senate had already seen a Senator who was related to the President by marriage takfe the oath, and he could see no difference between in terest on the ground of slfflnity and the interest which the Senator from Ohio might he supposed tD have. Besides, the Senator from Ohio was only the presiding officer ofthe Senate pro tempore, and Ittight or might not continue as such to the clbse of these proceedings. He, therefore, hoped that the oath would be admiulatdred to tlie Senator from Ohio. Reverdy Johnson's Vie-nra. Mr. Johnson (Md.) assimilated this case to an otaitery judicial proceeding, and reminded the Senate that no judge would be allowed to sit ini a case where he holds a direcit interest. Was It right, he said, to subject a Sfeuator to such greift temptation — the whole Executive power «f tie nation, with twenty-flve thousand dollars a year? He submitted, therefore, that It was due to the cause ot impartial justice that such precedent should not be established as would bring the Senate m disrepute. Why was it that the Chief Justice now presided? It was because the fathers of tlie repubUc thought that he who was to be entitled to beneflts should not be permitted ever to pre side where he could only v6te in case of a tie vote> He did not kuow that the question could be de cided at once. It was a grave and important question, and would be so considered by the country, and he submitted whether it was not proper to postpone its decision till to-morrow, in order, particularly, that the piecedents of the Edglish House of Lords might be examined. He moved, therefore, that the question be postponed till to-morrow. Mn Davis (Ey.) argiied that the question was to be decided on principle,' and that principle was to be found in the Constitution. It was thought the man who was to succeed the President in case of removal from offlce should not take part in the trial of the President. If the case of Mr. Wade did not come Within the letter of the C6t> stitution, it did come cleariy within its principle and meaning. Mr. MoRKiLt, (Me.) argued that thefe was no party before the court to make the objection, aiid that it did not lie in the province of one Senator to raise an objection against a fellow Senatdt. When the party appeared here, then objection could be made and argued; but not here and now. It seemed to him that there was no option arid no discretion but to administer the oath to aU the Senators. Mr. Hendricks (Ind.) al-gued that it was in herent in a court to - judge of its own qualiflca tion, and it was not for a Senator to present the question. Itwas forthe court itself to deter mine whether a member claiming a seat in the court was entitled to it; therefore, the question was not immaturely m.ide. The suggestion bf Senator Sherman that Senator Wade might not continue to be President of the Senate, was no answer to the objection. When he should cease to be the presiding offlqer q^ the Senate he could be sworn in, but now, at this time, he was in competent. In the case of Senator Stockton, of New Jersey, the Question had been decided. There it was held that the Senator, being interested in the re sult of the vote, had no right to vote. Oue of the standing rules ofthe Senate itself was, that no Senator should vote where he had an interest in the result of the vote, .but in his judgment the constitutional ground was even higher than tiie question ot interest. The Vice President was not allowed, by the Constitution, to keep order in the Senate during an impeachment 'trial. He hoped he need not disclaini any personal feeling iu the matter. He made the point now because he thought the Constitution itself ha:d settled it that no man should help to deprive the President of Si IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. , Ms office when tha,t man himself was to fiU the J office. He hoped that, in view of the importance of the question, the mo.tipp, inade by the Senator , from Maryland would prevaill I Mr. Williams (Ore.) held tjiat the objection was entirely immature. .^If ;this body was the Se nate, then the presiding offlcer of the Senate ahould preside, and jf it was not, was .there any court organized to decide .the question? He, Iiever heard that one juror could chaUenge an other juror, or that one judge could challenge another judge. Had a court ever been, known to adopt a rule that a certaiii member of ,it! should or should not participate in its proceedings.; It was a matter entirely for the judg? himself^, Mr. Davis asked the question whether, if a Vice President came here to present himself as a menj- ber of the court, the court itself could not ex clude him ? . ¦ Mr. Williams did not think that a parallel case, for by the very words of the Constitntion the Vice President was excluded. It did not follow that because this court was organized as the Constitution required, a Senator having any interest would participate in the trial. He m^ht, when the time came on for trial, decline to par-, tipipate. If any. Senator should insist,: not*ith-' . standing the rulepf the Senate referred to, on hiS] right to vote, even ou a question wherehehad an interest, he had a constitutional right to do so.; , Mr. Fessenden (Me.) suggested. .that 'the; administration of the oath to the Senator from Ohio be passed over for the present untU all the other Senators are sworn. , { i i i, . < Mr. Conness (Cal.) qbjected, that there was no! right on the part of the Seuate to raise a question as to the right of another ) Senator, andhe pre- . ferred that a yote be now taken and. the question decided. The question as to whether a Senator . had such an interest in the TesvUt as to ISeep him . from participating in the trial, was a matter for the Senatpr alone. Mr. ^BSSENpEN explained that his intention was simply thataU the, other Senators should be sworn, so as to be able to act upon the question as a duly orgai^ed court. . He, cared nothiug about it, however, one way or another, and he had no opinion to express on the subject. Can a Senator be Excluded from the Senate Mr. HowAsn (Mich.) sustained the right of the Senator from Ohio to be B\f orn and to participate ^n the trial. He did not understand on wh^t ground this objection could be sustained. They were not acting in their ordinary capacity as a Senate, but were acting as a court. What right had the members of the Senate, not yet sworn, to vote on this objectipnf How was tbe subject to begot at? Qould the members already sworn exclude a Senator? ' Thati would be a strange deposition. . As the Senate was now fixed it had no right tpi pass a ' resolution pr an order. It was au act j simply coram non judice., He suggested,' there- J fore, that the objection be withdrawn fqr the pre- «ent. , ; X^e President Idigrht Ask a (tuestion. Mr. Morton (Ind.) argued that thei-e was do person here authorized to' make the objebtioii tyecaose itwas the rightof a party to waive l(w objection I of interest on the' part of a judge e* juror, and the President wheu he came here fbt trial mjght pay, "Why was not the Senator from Ohio BVfCffB,?", .The thepyyjpf.ihis coUcs^ue (id Hendricks) was false. This impeachment was to be triet} by the. Senate. The .^enator from Ol^Jo was k 'jnember of" this body, and liis rights as BuctJ could not be taken from him. His election as Presiding officer took frpm him none of his rights as ' Senator ;' but aside from that, he ce- peated, that there was no, person here entitled to raise the question. -A Precedent Cited. Mr. Johnson (Md.) urged'the propriety of MS motion, that the ' question should, Ihe postponed tiU to-morrow. It was a question in which the people of the United States were concerned, aid by npiepnduot of his, by no waiver of his righis could the. .court be organized in any other way than^the Conistjtution provides. He repelled ta* intimation that the body was not a court but was a Senate. .As the 'Senate, he argued, its pow^ iwer^ jp^ly.lqgisl?,tiveT an.d|it hs^d np judicial powen except as a court. . So ba.d, ali their predecessots rule^,i,3iu^,the ,celebi'.ited impeachment case of Juptii^ iChase, fhe {Senate acted on the idea tint "they were ajCtipg,aS;a, court, riot. as a Senate. The Senators'were to decLare on their oaths, to deci<^S>6h,e!iquestiou'Of guilty or ,iiot , guilty, and deylaife the judgnient; , and who had ^ver heard of a Sfetia'te declaring a judgment. The very faet that the Chief Justice liad'.|to preside show^ that' this vvas a court' of th^.higlies't charat^ej. Aa to the argument^ that a Sen.ator had a right to vote on i' question wherein he iiad au interest, ha asked who had ever heard before of such a pro positiouM'TTMeonrts hadjeven gone so fai- as to (leclare that a judgineiit pronounced by a judge in a case where he had personal interest was ab solutely void,' on the general principle that no man had a right to be a jud^e in his owu caae. In conclusion, he tespended ttie motion, and moved that the other inembel's be now sworn. Mr. Wade's Rlgphts. Mr. Sherman (Ohio) declared that the right of his colleague to take the oath, and bis duty to ^ it was clear jn his own mind. If hereafter tto question of , interest was raised against hini U could be .^ discussed and. defiided. The case of Seiiator Stockton, to which reference had bi«n made, was a case in point. Notwithstanding I4ie question of the legality pf his election, noona questioned bis right to be awom in the first i> starice. It was only when his case came up (br decision that his right to vote on that cas^ ws disputed aud refused, and he (Mr. Sherman) taA ever doubted the 'correctness of- that decision, Tbe, same question c^me up in his owu case wb^ h,e was a candidate for the Spoakershif) of Difl Hpuse of, Representatives. , , IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. ANDREW JOHNSON. Fresideut of tlie Uuited States. (2) IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 25 He had taken his oath as a member of the House, and he had a right, if he had Chosen t'j exercise it, to cast his vote for himself. He claimed that the State of Ohio had a right to be represented on this trial by its two Senators. His colleague should decide for himself whether he would participate in the trial and vote on ques tions arising in it. Questions had been introduced in this debate which he thought should uot have been introduced. The only question at issue was, should or Should uot tho Senator from Ohio be sworn In. Why the Challengre -was made. Mr. Bayard (Del.) argued agaiust the right of Senator Wade tp taMe the oath, the pbject of the Constitution being to exclude the person who was to be benefited liy the deposition of the Pre sident from taking part in the proceeding leading to such deposition. He proceeded to argue that the character ofthe body in trying impeachment was that of a court, not that of a Senate. He could uot conceive on what ground the questions as to the character of the body was introduced, except it' was that. Senators, in cutting themselves loose from the restraints of their judicial charac ter, might give a full swing to their partisan passions. If he stood in the same position as the Senator from Ohio, the wealth of the world would not tempt him to sit in such a case. mr. Sumner EiOoks up Eiaiv and £auity. Mr. Sumner (Mass.) declined to foUow Sena tors in tlie discussion of the question as to whe ther this body was a Senate or was a court. Its powers were plainly laid down in the Constitu tion. The Constitution had not giveu the body a name, but it had given it powers, aud those pow ers it was now exercising. Distinguished Sena tors on the other side had stated that the Consti tution intended to prevent Senators who were to benefit by the result of impeachment from parti cipating in the trial of the accused. Where did they flnd that interest? Where did they find the reason alleged for the provision as to the Chiet Justice presiding? It was nbt to be found in the Constitution itself, norin the papers of Mr. Ma dison, nor in the Federalist, nor in any cotempo raneous pubUcations. The flrst that was to be found of that idea was in Rawle's ¦ Commentaries on the Cpustitution, pubUshed iri 1825, and the next that was to be found of it was ten years later, in Story's Com mentaries, where, in a note, Rawle is cited. • If they were to trast to the lights of history, the reason for the introduction of this clause was be cause the framers Of ' the Constitution had con templated the suspension of the President during impeachment, and because, therefore, the Vice President could not be in the Senate he would be dischaming the Executive functions. Mr. Sumner referred to the constitutional de bates in support of his theory, particularly citing the words of James Madison ih the debate in the Virginia Convention, to the effect that thfe House might impeach the President, that the Senate might convict him, and that they (meaning either the Senate or the Seuate and House of Represen tatives jointly) could suspend him from office, when his duties Would devolve uppn the Vice President. Here, he argued, was an authentic reason for that provision ofthe Constitution pro viding that when the President was on trial the Chief Justice should preside. He submitted that the Senate could not pro ceed upon the theory of the Senators on the other Bide. The, text could not be extended from its plain and simple meaning. As to the question of interest, he asked who could put into the one scale the great interests of the public justice, and into the other paltry personal temptation. He believed that if the Senator from Ohio was al lowed to hold those scales, the one containing personal interest would " kick the beam." Speech of mr. Ha-«re. Mr. Howe (Wis.) thought the questiPu would not be a very difflcult one if thoy were willing to read what was written, and to abide by it. It was written that the Senate should be composed of two Senators from each State, and it was else where written that Ohio wasa State. It was also written that the S^nsvte.shouUl have the po'tver to try impeachments— the Senate, and no one else. He conceived, therefore, that that was the end of the law. Whatever after question of delicacy there might be, the queation of Law was clear, that the Senator from Ohio was entitled to par ticipate in this trial. If the Constitutiou were silent on the subject, no ono would have chaUenged the right of the presiding officer of the Senate to pl-eside on thisitrial. The Conatitu-. tion, however, had provided for that question, and had gone uo further. If any objection did exist to the Senator from Ohio, the only party who had a right to raise the objection was not here and was not represented here. Mr. Drake (Mo.) argued that if the objection'^ had any legal validity whatever, it was one which had to be passed upon affirmatively or negatively by some body, and he wanted to know what that body was? Was it so passed upon by the pre siding officer of the Senate? He hardly ¦ thought so. Was it to be passed upon by this body itself? Theu eome in the difflculty that there were stiU four Senators unsworn. It might have beeu among the first or the veiy first one, and then would have had to be decided by Senators, not one of whom had been sworn. Mr. Thayer (Neb.) discussed the question as to whether this was a court or not. 'Ihey had- to corns down to the plain words of the Constitu tion, "The Senate shall have power to try im peachments." If this body was a court now, where did the transformation take place? It was the Senate when it met at twelve o'clock, and had not since adjourned; nor could it be said at what particular point of time the transformation took place, if at all. If the question ot interest was to be raised in the case of the Senator from Ohio, it ought with greater reason be raised against the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Patter son), who was so closely aUied with the Presi dent'. Besides every Senator, who might succeed to the offlee of presiding officer was also interested but one degree less than the Senator from Ohio. The Senator from Ohio could not be deprived of, his vote except by a gross usurpation of power. Suppose ten or flfteen Senators were closely allied. to the accused, the objection might be made, and, the whole movsmesi defeated by reducing the body below a quorum. Mr. Howard rose to call the attention of the chair to th? real matter befbre the body, and to inquire wjifeth^r the pending motion, that other Senators be sworn in, was in order. Chief Jpstice Chase replied afiSi-matively. Mr. Howard rose to call the attention off the chair to the real questibn before theSenate, and ' asked whether the pending motion, that other Senators be sworn, was not in order? The Chief Jasttce said thit the Senator from Indiana having objected to the Senator from Ohio taking the' 'oath, there was uow a motion 26 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. that the remaining names be caUed, omitting the name of the Senator from Ohio. Mr. Howard said there was no rule requiring the names to be caUed in alphabetical order. The remaining names could be caUed now. He saw no necessity for further discussion of this motion, and thought' it was merely a question of order. It seemed ' to him that it must be held that the - trial had commenced, and that as the Senate had, the sole power to try impeachments, and as the Constitntion also prescribed the administration of an oath, it was out of order to interfere with the taidng of that oath. Mr. BtjOK ALE w asked if the rules did not pro vide that, the presiding officer shall, submit all questions to the Senate ; but' assuming it to be a question of order, he contended that the clause ¦was-iutended to apply to the old form of taking votes bv States. The Senate had already adopted a rule for excluding votes in a particular case — a rule fotJnded in justice. The argument was that the Senator had a right under the Constitution to represent Ohio. ; On several occaMons recently. Senators had presented themselves and had been deinied ad mission. Here they were organized into a court to decide the gravest possible questions. The ob jection was made at the proper tiine, ahd if not now ^made, a number of members not qualifled to act might take part in the proceedings and be judges in the case. It was not only, their right but their duty to raise the question now. They are acting under the Constitution, most of them having been sworn already, and the Chief Justice being there to artd dignity and disinterestedness to the delib erations ; and if they properly raised the question to be decided at the earliest possible moment, it was a question arising under the Senate, and they must meet it before they could organize. He was. content to take the decision of - the Chief Jiistice of the United States aud the opinion of a dist,iu- guished commentator, in preference to that of the ¦ Senator from Maaaachusetts. Objections were always made to jurors before they were sworn ; if not, it would be too late. ^r. Fkelinghhysen (N. J.) asked whether the Senator .supposed the accused waived his rigJit i of challenge by the Senators being all sworn? He . would challenge, if at all, aftbr they were organ-, ized, and, therefore, this was not the time to make objection. / '_ Mr. Buckalew said he waa not talking of chal lenges. It had not been put upon that gi-ound by the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Hpridricks). ChaUenge was .a right given by statute. Mr. Morton replied to Mr. Buckalew, and said the Constitution had made the tribunal itaelf, and they had no right to constitute one. It was not important what they caUed the Senate now, but it was material that they should sit as the Consti- tiition authorized them, in the trial ot an im peachment — as a Senate. The Senator from Ohip being a member of the Senate, and tho Senate performing duties im posed upou it by the Constitution, it was idle for them to talk about orgainizing S, ccmrt, when the Constitution placed certain duties upon them. At 4-80 P. M., Mr. Grimes (Ia.)i after premising that tbe Chief Jfistjcc. hayjgg: sa,t ^jnce 11^. M,, must be fatigued, moved tp.acljoiirn. Mr. Howard suggested that aa a court they could not adjourn the SenatOi and 'Mr. 'Grimes n^oyed to adjourn the poart until to-morrow morning. The Chief Juatice irat thq mo,tiou and deslared it carried, and vacated tho chah'. PROCEEDINGS OF THURSDAY, MARCH 5. The Chief Justice was again eseorted to the chair by Mr. Pomeroy, the chairman of the com mittee appointed for that purpose. The Secretary of the Senate read, the minutes of the court yesterday, including, the adjourn ment of the Senate. The Chief Justice then stated the question to be — an objection having been made to thu swear ing-in of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. W.ide) — a motion to postpone , tiie, Bif^J^^grfU '.of that Se nator until the reinaining members have been sworn. ' , ' , , He also announced that Mr. Dixon (Conn.) had the floor. Mr. DixoN^Mr. President — A Point Of Order. Mr. Howard (Mich.) — Mr. President, I rise to a point of order The Chief Justice — The Senator will state his point of order. Mr. HowARD^-By the Constitution, the Senate, sitting on the trial of impeachment, is to be on oath or affirmation. Each member of the Senate, by the Constitution, is a component member of the body for that purpose. There can, therefore, be no trial unless that oath or affirmation be taken by the respective Senators who are present, f-he Constitution of tiie Uxnted States is imperative, and when a member presents himself to take the oath, I hold that, as a rale' of order, it Is the duty of tlie presiding officer to administer the oath, and that the proposition to take the oath cannot^ be postponed. Other members have no control over the question. That is the simple duty de volved upon the presiding officer of the body who administers the oath. Further, sir : — The Senate, on the second day of the present mohth, adopted rulea for then- government in proceedings of this kind. Rule third declares that, before proceeding to the con sideration of the articles of impeachment, the presiding officer shall administer the oath' ' herein after provided tb the members of the Seriate then prdsent. Mr. Wade is present and ready, and the other members if they appear, whose duty it is to take the^oath., ,Th,e"form of the oath .is alsb pre scribed by out- present rules as follows : — ¦ " t solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be), that in all the things appertaiuiii^ to the trial of the iltipeachraeut of Andrew 'Jbhusoh,' now pending, I will" do impartial justice according to the Constitution andlaws. So help me God." That is the form of oath prescribed by our rules. It is the form in which the presiding offi cer of this body hjmself is sworn. It is the form in ^hich we aU (thusfar) have been swoi-n; and so far as the rules are concerned, I insist that they have ah-eacly been adopted and recognized by us, so far as it is possible, during the condi-^ tion in which we now are, of organizing oui-.^ selves for the discharge of our present duties. I, therefore, make the point of order, that the ob jection made to the swearing in of Mr. Wade, is out of order, under the rules and under tlie Gon- , stitution of the United States, and I ask the court respectfully, but earnestly, that the President of the Senate, the Chief Justice ; of thf Supreme Court of the United States, now pj-esiding in the b.)dy, do decide the question without debate. I object to any further debate. -- Mr. DixoN'— The questioni before . the Senate Is whether under this rule the Senator from Qhid^ Mr Drake (Mo.)— I call the Senator from Con- neeticut to order. . . ' , ¦ i, , , . ' , The Chief Justice— 'The Senator from Conecti- IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 27 out is caUed to order. The Senator from Michi gan (Mr. Howard) has made a point of ofder to be submitted to the consideration of the body. During the proceedings for the organization of the Senate for the trial of an impeachment of the President, the Chair regards the' general rules of the Senate obligatory, and the Senate must deter mine itself every question whioh arises, unless the Chair is permitted to determine. In a case of this sort, affecting so neai-ly the organization of this body, the Chair feels himself constrained to submit the question pf order to the Seuate. WUl the Senator from Michigan state his point of order in writing? . Mr. Dixon— Ml-. President, I rise to a point of order. The Chief Justice — A' point of order is already pending, and this point cannot be made untU the other is decided. Mr. Dixon — I desire to know whether a point of order cannot be made with regard to that question. The Chief Justice— The Chair is of opinion that no poiut of order can be made pending another point of order. Mr. Howard prepared his point of order and sent it to the Chair. The Chief Justice-^Senators, the point of order submitted by the Senator, from -Michigan is as follows: — "That the obje.ction raised to admiuia- tering the oath to Mr. "Wade i§ out of order, and the motion of the. Senator from Maryland to postpone the administering of the oath to Mr. Wade until other Senators are sworn, is also out ' of order under' the rules adopted by the Seuate of 2d of March inat., and under the Constitution of the United States." The question is open to debate. Mr. Dixon — Mr. President. The Chief Justice— The Senator from Connec ticut; Mr. Drake — I Call the Senator to order. Uuder the rules of the Senate questions of order are not debatable. Mr. Dixon was nnderstoo-d to say that ques tions of order referred to the Senate were debat able. Mr. Drake — ^I do not so understand the rules of the Senate. There can be debate upon an ap peal- from the decision of the Chair, but there can he no debate in the flrst instance upon a question irQl^ wererigid'Iy enforced, and hundreds of strangers, ignorant of the necessity of ob taining tickets, were turned back disappointed. The Senators' seats were arranged as before. In the open' ppace, lin front of the President's chair were two Ipng 'tables, each furnished with seven chairp— one intended for the managers, aiad the other for the counsel.' Back of, the Senators/ seats, andfiUjng the entire lobby, were about two hundred Ghairg for the accommoda tion of the members of the Honse, the Jiidiciai'y an'd . others entitled, to the -ftoor. u Senators Howard and Ahthony wer* in their seats «arly, and by one o'clock half the Senators had ap- ' "peared and ranged themselves in little knots discas- siilg the momen tous business of the day. It was noticeable that not a single negro was in the falleries. The section usually occupied by them was lied with ladies. There was no rush and no crowd ing of door aisles. Everything was conducted with pec£ect order and decorum. The Prayer. i The Chaplain invoke^ a blessing 'Ofbli t|iose now entering upon this high and important dut!y, and upon whom rest the eyes o'f the cduntry and of the world, ' that t^^ may be guided by Divine wisdom, that all their acljs may be characterized by justice, and that the High Court may be led -to such a verdict as Qpd win approve, and to which all the people shall respond Jieartily, "Amen." The morning hour of the ilenate was occupied with ^he uauaL legialative routine. Report ofthe Serireant-at-Arms* The Sergeant-at-Arms then subscribed to the fbllow- ing affidavit, read by the Clerk :— "The foregoing writ of Bummons,- addressed to Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and the foregoing . ij^ecept, addressed to me, were this da3' aerved upon the 'said A:^drevv Johnson, by delivering to and leaving with '^itii copieB of the same at the Executive Mansion, the xisual place of nbode of the said Andrew Johnson, on.Sa- , tuvdaTT the 7th day.of March, instaot, at seven o'clock. (Bigued) ^ ¦ GEOliufe G. BROWN. Sergeant-at-Arms of the United States Senate. The President Called. The /Chief , JuBtice-r-The Sergeant-at-Arms will call vtbe accused. The Sergeant-at-Arms, in a loud voice;— "Andrew Johnson, President ofthe United States I Andrew -Jofan^ont President of the United States! Appear and answer the articles of impeachment exhibited against 70a by the Huase ofi Bepreseatatiyes of the .United ..States.".^ ^.. . j ' ' ¦ , Tlie doors were thrown open ff.% this point, and every eye was turned that way for a moment, but Mr. Butler entered audftookhlsaeat with the other ma nagers. Mr. JOHNSON (Md.) rose and eaid soijlethlng'in a voice inaudible in the gallery, whereupon this Chifef Justice said:— The Sergeant-at-Arms will Inform the 'Couneel of the President.* ' The President's cdtmsel, Messrs. Stanbery, Curtis ¦and Nelson, were ushered in at the side door, and look seats at the table to the right of the chair, Mr. •Staahery on the right, the others in the order named.' ' Mr. CONKLING offered the following, by direction •of the commiltee, in order, he said, to correct a clerical error':— ) Ordered, Thatthe twenty-third rule of the Senate ior proceedmgH on the trial of impeachment be amended by inserting alter the woisd '*debatet" in the seoond line, t£e following wordB:-''Snl^ecti however, to tte operation of rnle seven," so that if- amended it will read as toliows .— '*23d. All the orders and deciaona ahall be made ana naa hv yea« and nays, which efifeTl he entered on the record, and without debate, subject, heWever, to the operation 01 rule seven,?' &c. , - Rule seven provides that the presiding offlcer ni$y. in the first instance, submit to the Senate, without a division, all qnestidna of evidence and incidental questions. Mr. CONKtilNG explained that snch was the ori ginal intention, but that the qualifying words were accidentally omitted. The o'r(ie^ was adopted. , At twenty minutes past one o'clock the Sergeant-at- Arms announced tho members of the House of Keprq- 'sentatives,.and the 'members entered and distributed themselves as far aa poHsible amons; the chairs and sofas not already dcfcufeied by thbse having thee7ttree to the Chamber under the rmesi Many, however, did not find seats at once. :' Thi^ Plea ofthe President. Mr. STANBERT then rose and said :— Mr. Chief Justice, my brothers Curtis, Nelpotaand myself, are here this morning as counsel for the President; I have his authority to enter his plea, #hiCh, by your leave, I will proceed to read. Mr. Stanbery read the plea of President Johnson. A FrofeBsional Statement. Mr. STANBERY-T-I have also a professional etatfe- meut in support of the application ; whether it is in order to offer iti now thp Chair .will decide. Tfie Chiel Justice— The appearance willWconfli- dered as entered. You can proceed. Mr. Stanbery then read hia statement as follows:— In the matter of tiie impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President ofthe United States, Henry ^tanbe^y, Benjamin E. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William M.JEvarts and Thomas A. R. Nelson, of counsel for the reapondent. move the court for the aUowance of forty davs for the prepara tion ofthe answer to the, articles of ImiPeachment. a^d^ iu support of the motion, make the folio wing professional statement :— The articles are eleven, in number, involving many ques tions of law andifact. We have, during the limited time and opportunity offered us, cont^idered, as far aa poasible, the field of investigation which must be explored in the £ reparation of the answer, andthe concliision at ivhieh we ave arrived, is that, with ,the utmost, diligeuce, thie tiine we have askfed ifl reasonable an^d necessary. The pvecedents as to time for answer upon- impeachment be fore the Seuate, to which wo have had opportunity to re fer, are those nf Judge Chase aud Judge Peck. , In the case of Judge Chaae, time wad allowed' frtnh the 3d of Janilary until the llth of February next succeedfUe, to put his answer^ u period of thirty-two days; but in thv case there was but a single article. Judge Peck asked for time from the IOth to the 25th of May to put in hi? answer, and it was granted* Itappears that Judge Pock had been long cosnlaant, of the ground laid for hia impeachment, and nad oeeii present before tha cdmmittee of the House upon the examination of the ,witnessea, aind had been permitted by the House of Repre sentatives to -preaent to that body an elaborate ansvver to the charges. ' - It is apparent that the President is fairly entitled to raore timethan was. allowed, in either of the foregioing cases. Itis pro^csp to, add that the respondents in those casea w^ro lawyers' hilly ca:^able of preparing their bwn answers, aud that no pressing official duties interfered with their attention to that husiuess. . Whereas, the President, nqt being a lawyer, must rely on hil counsel ; the charpea involve his acts, relations aUd intentions, a-sto all which his counsel must be fully advised iipon oonfiuitation with him, step by step, in the prepara tion of his defense. It is seldom that a case requires such constant communication between Qlient and comasel aa this, and yet auch communicatien can' only be had at such intei'vals as are allowed to the President from the usual hours that must be devoted to bis high official dufciei We farther beg leave to suggest for the consideration of thia honorable court, that counsel, careful as well for their o,^vu reputation as of tho interests- of their client, in a caae of auch magnitude as this, so out of the, ordinary range pf professional experience, where so much responsibilitylB felt, they submit to the candid conaideration of the court that they have a right to aak for themselves such oppor tunity to discharge that duty as seems to them tobe afco- Itttely neceaaary. CSlgned) HENRY STANBERY, '> ^ BENJAMIN R. CURTIS, JEREMIAH S. BLACK, WILLIAM M, EVARTS,. THOMAS A. R. NELSON, March TS, 1868. Counsel for respondent IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON, 31 Mr. Bingham's RepSication. Hr. BINGHAM, Chairman of the Managers on the part of the Honse, said- Mr. President- 1 am instracted by tbo managers, on the part of the House, to suggest that under the eighth rule adopted by the Senate for the government of these proceedings, after tbe appearance of the ac cused, a motion for a continuance is not allowed, the language uf the rule being that if the accused appear and flle an answer, the case shall proceed as on tbe general' issue. If be do, not appear, the 'case shall ^proceed &i on the general issne. The tnahagers ap peared at the bar of the Senate, impressed with the belief that tbe rule meant precisely whaf it vays, and that in default of appearance the trial would proceed as on a plea Of not gtnfty ; if, on appearance, no ' answer was filed, the trial shall still, a'ecording io - the language ofthe riile, prbceed as on a plea of not guilty, Addreas of Jud^e Curtis. Mr. CURTIS, of the counsel for the President, 8aid;— Mr. Chief Justice:— If the coniBtraction which the managers hav^ put upon the rule be correce^the .counsel forthe president, have been, entirely mismd by the phraseology of the rule. ' They (the coups^l for the Fresideut) have Qonstrued.the .^ul^e in th^ l;ght of similar rales existing iii ^ourtspf justice^ for in stance, in a court of equity. The order in, the «ub- . poena is tp appear oh a certain day and answer the • plea; but certainly it was ncver;understood that.they wero to auswer the plea on the day of tbeir appear ance. So it is in a variety of other legal proceedings. Parties are summoned to appear on a certain day, bat the day wheu they are to answer is either flxed by some general rule of the tribunal, or there will be a special order In the particular ca^e. Now, here we find a rule by which the Ppesideijt ,iB commanded to appear on this day, aud answer and ] abide. Certainly that part of thie rule which relates to abldmg has reference to future proceedings and to the final result of the case. And so, as we have construed fthe rule, the part of it which relates to answering has -reference to a future proceeding;' We submit, there fore, as counsel for the President, that the interpreta tion whifch is pnt npon tlie rule by the honorable managers is not the correct one. Reply of Judffe Wllsjon for the Manaffers. Mr, WILSON, one of the Managers, said:— Mr. -Preaident-ji; desire to say.-iu behalf of the Managers, that we do nbt eeif how it, would be possible for the eighth rule adopted by the Senate to, mislead the re spondent oi" hil3 counsel. That rule provides that. npon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore pro vided, a writ of summons shall, issue'to the accused, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear be fbre the Senate iipon a day and at a place to be flxed bythe Senate and named in such writ, and file' his answer to'said articles dT impeachment, and to stand and abide snch orders and judgments of the Senate 'thereon., , The rule farther provides that. if the ac cused after,8eEyice shall fail to appear, either in pe]*son OT by attorney, on the day so fixed therefor, as afore- Baid',' ov appearing shall :fiuiI,to-lile an auswer to such articlea oMmpeachment, the trial shall proceed never theless as upop a. plea q{ not guilty. The learned counsel in the professional statement ffubmitted to the Senate, refer to tbe cases Of Judge Chase and Judge Peck, and I presume that in the ex- , fflninatlon of the records of those cases, the attention of tbe counsel was directed to the rules adopted by the Senate forthe government of its action ou the ar gument of those case. , j^y.refererice to the rules adopted hy the Senate for the trial o]^ .Judge Peck, we tind that a very 'tiiateriai Change haa been made by the Senate in the adoption of the present rale, Thp, rule in the case of Jndge ,, Peck, being the third rule, prescribed the form of aummons. and required that on a day to be fi^ed the Despondent should then and, there appear and answer. The same rule was adopted in the Chase case, but the present rale is in those cases the words to which I have called the attehtlon of the Senate:— **That he shall appear and file his answer to said articles of im peachment; and that, appearing in person, shall he fail to file his answer to such articles, the trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as on a plea of not guilty," I submit, therefore, Mr. President, that the change which has been made in the rule for the governinent of this case must have been made for some good rea son. What that reason may have been may be made a subject of discussion in this case hereafter, but tho change meets us on the presentation of this motion, and we, therefore, on the part of the Houve of Repre- sftntatives, which we are here repreaenting, ask that the rnle adopted by the" Senate for the government of this case may be enforced. It is for the Senate to say whether this rule shall be 'soetained as a rule to govern the case, or whether it shall he changed; but stand ing as a rule at this tinie, ws ask for its enforcement. I iUr. Stanbery Criticises the Action of the JManaarers. Mr. STANBERY said theactiontaken by the honor able managers is so singular that in the whole course of my practice I have not met with an example of it. The Presideiit ofthe United States, Mr. Chief Justice, is arraigned ou impeachment, by the Houae of Reore- sentatlves, a case of the greatest magnitude that we have ever had, and it, as totime, is to be treated as if it were a case before a police court, to be put through with railroad speed, on, the first day of- the trial. Where do my learned friends flnd a precedent for call ing on the trial ou this day ? -' They say:— "We have notified you to appear here to answer ou a given day." We are here. We enter our appearance. As my learned friend, Mr. Curtis, has said, you have used precisely the language that is used in a subpoena in chancery. But who ever heard that, when a defendant in chancery made hia appearance, he must appear with his anawer ready to ^o on with the case, and must enter oh the trial ? O^f courae we corae here tb enter our appearance. We state that we are ready to hnswer. We do not wish the case to go by default. We want time, reasonable time; nothing more. Consider that it is but a few days since the President was served with the sum mons; that as yet all his counsel are not present Your Honor will Observe that of five counsel who sighed this profession.al statement, two are not pres ent, and could not be present, and one of them I am sure is not in the city. Not one of them, on looking at these articles, suspected that it was the intention to bring on the (Jrial atthis day. Yet, we understand the gentlemen oti the pther side to say, read these rules according to their letter, and you must go on. - If the gentlemen are right, if we are here to answer to-.day, aud to go on with the trial to-day, then thia is the day for trial. Bat article nine saj^s:— "At 12*30 P. M. of the day appointed for the^ return of the sara mons against the person imp'eached" — showing that this is the return day and not the trial day. The managers 'saV that, according to the letter of th'e eighth rule, this is the trial day, and that we must go on ahd file our ans'wer, or tliat without answer the court shall euterthe plea of "not guilty" on the gene ral issue, and proceed at once. But we say that this is the returu day and not the day ot trial. The tenth rule sayi?:— "The person impeached shall be then called to appear and ailswer." The defendant appears to answer, states his willingness to answer, and-only asks time. The eleventh rule says:- "At 12-80 P. M. ofthe day appointed for the trial.^* That is uot this day. Thia day, which the managers would make tbe first day of the trial, is in the Senate's owh rules put dowu for the return day, and there raGet be some day tixed for the trial to suit the convenience of the parties, so that the letter of one rule answers the letter of another ruie*. ' But pray, Mr. Chief Justice, is it possible 'that, under theee circumstancea, we are to be caught in this trap of the letter? As yet there has not been time to prepare an'auswer to a siiigle one of these articles. As yet the President has been engaged lu prdcnring his counsel, and all the time occupied with So- much consultation as was necessary to flx the shortest time when, in our judgment; we will be ready to proceed with the trial. Look back through the whole line of impeachment cases, even in the worst times. Go back to the Star Chamber;' and everywhere, and yoa Will find that even there English fair play prevailed. This is the first instance to be fotmd on record any- IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. whfere where, on appearance day./the iflEfenclant was reqaired to answer immediately, and proceed withth* trial. We have not a witneaa mmmoned; we hardly Know what wilnessES to summon. Weare-ehtirely at sea. Mr. Chief Jiistice, I submit to this court whether wj are to be caught in this way. "Strike, bnt hear." Give us tho opportunity that men have in common civil cases, where they are allowed hardly less than thirty days to answer, and most frequently sixty days. fa'ive us time; give ns rensouaible time, and then we shall be prepared for the trial and for the sentence of the court, whatever it may be. Remark* of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, rising, said:— _ The Chief Justice would state, at the start, that he is embarrassed in the construction of the roles. The tw^nty^seiBonirule provides that the case on Sach.filde may be opened by one person. He understood that as referring to the case when the evidence and the case are ready for argumenti' .The twentieth rule provides that all preliminary or' interlocutory questions and all motions shall be arffued for not eMeeding one hour on each side, unless the Senate shall, by order, extend the time; whether that Is intended to applv to the whole argument on each side, or to the arguments of each counsel who may address the court, is a; question which the Chief Justice is at a loss to solve. In the, present case he has allowed the argument to proceed without attempting to restrict it, and unless the Senate order otherwise he will proceed iu that course. Mr. BINGHAM said:— It was npt my purpose when I raised the queatlon under the rule prescribed by the HCjUate, to touch in any way on the merits of any ap plication whioh might be made for the extension of the time for the preparation of the trial. The only object I had in view, Mr. President, was to see whether the Senate were disposed to abide by its own rules, and by raising the question to remind the Se nators of wbat they kuow— that in this proceeding they are a rule ahd a law nnto r.heraselves. Neither •the cdmmon iaw nor the civil law furnishes any rnle whatever for the conduct of this trial, save it may be the rules which govern the matter of evidence. • There is nothing more clearly settled in this country,' and in that country whence we derive our laws generally, .than the proposition which we have j-ust 8t'ated,^'and henceit follows that the Senate shall prescribe rules for the conduct of the trial ; and having prescribed rules, my associate managers aud myself deem it im portant to inquire whether those .rules, on the very threshold of these proceedings, were to be disre- jregarded and set aside. I may be pardoned for saying ;that I am greatly surprised at the hasty words which 'dropped from the lips of my learned and accom plished frieud, Mr. Stanbery, who has just taken his seat — that he failed to discriminate between the ob jection inade here and the objection which. might 'hereafter be made, for the motion for the coutinuauoe of "the trial. But, Mr. President, there is nothing clearer-no thing better known to my learned and' accomplished frieud. than that the making up of the issue before auy fi'ibunai of justice and the trial are very distinct transactions. This is perfectly well understood. A very remarkable caae in the State trials lies before me, .wheraiordHolt presided over the trial of Sir Eichard Brown, Freston and others, for high treason;- and When coun'sel appeared, as the gentlemen appear this morning iu this court, to ask for a continuance, the auswer which fell from the lips ofthe Lord Chief Jus tice perpetually was:— We are not, to consider the question of the trial, until a plea be pleaded. Because, as his lordship very well reniarked, it may happen that no trial will be required, Perch.inoe you raay plead guilty to the indictment, and so the rule lying before us contemplated. The last clause ot it provides that if the defendant appears and Bhall plead guilty, there maybe no further proce^diilgs in the case; no. trial about it. Nothing would remain to be _ doue but to pronounce judgment uuder the Constitution. It is time enough for us to talk about trial when we have an issue. The rule is a plain one— a simple one, and I maybe pardoned for flaying that I fail'to per ceive anytning iu rules ten and eleven, to which the , -learned counsel haye referred, which in any kind of construction can be applied to limit, the effect of the ¦wofds in rule Wght, to wit:— "That if the patty l*il tq appear, e^aier in person or by couneel, on the day named in the snmmon's, the trial shall proceed on. the jJleB'Of notguHty;'' and fnrther:i-"That if failing oa the day named in the summons, either'in person ^br ,by,atLorney. rhe, failed to. answer the articles, the trial shall, nevertheless, proceed as on a plea of not guilty." When words are plain in written law there is an end of construction. They must be fi;llowed. The man agers so thonght when they, appeared at thia bar. All that they ask is that tbe rule be enforced— not a post- ponenrent for forty days, to be met at the end pf that time,, perhaps, with a dilatory plea and a motion, if von pleage, to quash the.articles, or with a quesdon .raising the inquiry whether this is the Senate of ths United States, , ,. It seems to me, if I may be pardoned in making„one other remark, that in prescribing both these rules, .that the summons shall issue to be returned on a cer- .tain day- giv^Uf as in this case, six days Jn advance^^ if waa intended thereby td" enable the pSrty, on, .(the day fixed for his appearance, to come to thia bar arfd make his answer to those articles., Xma^ be pardoned for saying, further, what is donbtlMs Known to every onewithin the hearing of^m^ ^icia,'that technical 'rules do in no way control, or limit" or teraper the ac tion of {his body; that undpr. the plea of not guilty every 'conceivable defense which tnis'pa'rtSr' can mai^e tgc^eae articles— if they be articles at all— if they b'e preparedby a 'competent tribunal ait all — can be at tempted. - , ' / Why, then, this delay of forty days to draw up au answer? What we deSire to know on behalf of the House of Eepresentatives— by whose authoHty we ap pear liere — is whether an answer is to be flled, in ac cordance with the nile, and if if be not tiled, whether the rule itself is to be enforced by the Senate, and a plea of not guilty entered upon the accused? That 'is onr inquiry. It is hot my purpose to'enter on the dis- Chssiou at 'all as to the postponing of the day for the 'pfdgji'eaa of the trial. My desire' ia for the present to see whether, under this rule and by forb6 of this rule, we' bau obtain an issue. The Chief Justice— Senators, the counsel ior the President submit a motion tha,t forty days be allowed for the preparation of his 'answer. The rule requires that as every que8tio,n shall be tak^u without debate, you who are in favor, of agreeing to that motion say yea. , Senator BDMIJNDS arent relish aome raw byaters brought him from the ! vilege of calling his counsel together, and of getting refectory. The President ^ro t&m., Mr. Wade, was ou the floor during most of the time occupied by the con- snUation. At aeren minutes past 4 o'clock the Senators re entered aud took their seats, when order was re- etored. Order of the Court. The Chief Justice said :— The motion made by coun sel is overruled, and the Senate adopts the order which will be read by thp. Secretary. Tbe Secretary read the order as follows :— . Ordered, That the re^pond'^ut anawer to the articles of impeachment on or before Monday, the 33d day of March instant. Tbe Iteplication. Mr. BINGHAM— Mr. President, I am instructed by the managers to suboiit-to the consideration of the Senate the following motion, and ask that it may be, reported by the Secretary. The Secretary read aS follows: — . Ordered, That before the .filing of replication bjr the ma* nagers on the part of the Houae of Representatives, the trtal of Andrew JohnHon, Prei'-ident ofthe tJmted Statea, upiiV- the articles of imyieaehment exhibited by the House of Kepreeentatives, shall proceed forthwith. The Chair put the question, aud said the yeas ap- ;pfiared, tohaveit; but tht^ yeas aud nays were de- , manded, with the following result:— - YKAS.^Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler. Cote, Conk lln, Conneea, Corbett,- D.rake. Ferry, Harlan, Howai;d, .'Morgan, MM-ton, Nye. Patterson (N. H.), .Ppmeroy, Ram-; sey. Roas, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tjpton, Williams, _ "WilBou and yateB-r25. -, NAYS.—Meaars. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davie' Dixon, Kdiniihda, FesPenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen' Grimes, Hrjnderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johii.=onvMcCreeryt Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Norton, Patterson (Tenn.), Saiilabiiry, Sherman, Sprague, TrnmbuJI, Van Winkle, Vickers and \Yilley— 26. So the order was not agreed to. Mr. Wade did not vote. Mr. SHERMAN offered the following order, which was read : — Ordered, That the trial of the articles of impeachment shall proceed ou the 6th of April next, Mr. HOWARD— I hopo not, Mr. President. , Mr. WILSOIt moved to amend by making it the let instead of the 6th of April next. ' Mr. BUTLER— I wnuld_ like lo inquire of the Pre Bident of the Senate if the mauagers on the part of the House of Representatives have a right to be heard upon this matter? The Chief Justice—The Chair,, js pf opinion that the managers haye a right to be heard. Speech of Gen. Butler. , Mr. BUTLB^Mr. President and gentlemen ^ the Senate : — However ungracious It may se jm on the part ,pf She managers representing the iHouse of Represen tatives, and thereby representing the people of the United States, i-n pressing an early trial of the ac cused, yet our duty to those who send us here-repre senting their wishes, speaking in their' behalf and by their comraand— the peace ofthe cohntry, the interests .of the pnople, all seem to require that We should urge the speediest possible trial. ¦ Among the reasons why the trial is sought to be de layed, the learned counsel who appear for the accused "have brought to the attention of the Senate precedents in early days. We are told tiiat railroad fepeed was tiot to be usfed on this trial. Sir, why not; railroads have effected everychii^g else in this world ; telegraphs have brought placea together that were thOttsands of miles apart. It takes infinitely lesi? tirae, if - 1 miiy use so strong hn expreeision, to brifls: a witness frohi California now than it took to send to Philadelphia for one in the case ofthe trial of Judge Chase; and, therefore, we musf not phur nur eyes to the fact that there arerfaitroads Kn(^ there are telegraphs to give the accuned the pri- answers from any wituesseft that he may have sum moned and to bring them here. It should have an im portant hearing on the course we are to take that I respeotfally submit is not to be overlooked. Railroads and telegraphs have changed the order of things. In every other business of.life we recognize that fact, why should we not in this? Passing from that which is but an incident— a detail, perhaps— will you allow me to susgest that the ordinary course of justice, the ordinary delays of courts, the ordinary term given in ordinary cases, for men to answer when called before courts of justiQe, have no application to this case. Kot «!ren, pir, when cases are heard and determined hefore the Supreme Court of the United States, are the rules applicable tb this particular case, for this reason, if foi no other, that when ordinary trials aro had, when ordinary questions are examinea at the bar of any court of justice,, there is no danger to'the Commonwealth iu delay; the Republic may talce'no detriment if the trial is delayed. To give the accused time interferes witfa nobody ;io give him indulgence hurts no one— may h^lphiiu. But here the House of Representatives have presented at the bar of the Senate, in the moat solemn form, the chief rulerof the nation, and tbey sa;^— and they desire your judgment upon the accusation— that he has usurped power which does not belong to hina; that he is. at thb same time, breaking, tbe law.s solemnly en acted by you, and those that' have sent you here— by the Congress of the United States— and that he still proposes so to do, r-, Sir, who is the criminal? I beg parddju pf the coun sel fof the respondent, he Is the Chief Executive of the nation 1 When I have said .that, I have tak^n o^t ft'om all rule this trial, because, I submit with defer ence, sir, that for the first time in the history of the world has a nation brought its ruler to the bar of its highest court, under the rules and forms provided |)y the Constitution; above all rule and all analogy— afl likeness to an ordinary trial ceases'there, I say that the Chief JExecutive, who is the com mander of your armies; who claims that command; who controls, through his subordinates, your Trea sury; who controls your navy; who controls all ele ments of power; who controls your forelarn relations; who may compliiiate* in an hour of oassion or preju dice, the whole nation by whom hs is arraigned as the rfesp'Obd^ntaty'dnr'bar; airdfrnark-mie, sir, I respiect- fully auhrait that the yery question here at issue' this day, this h^r, is whether he shall control, beyond the reach of your laws and,outsid0.of your laws, the arniy of the United States? That is the oue great que&tion here at issue — whether he shall, set aside your law?; set aside the decrees of tbe Senate and the laws .enacted by Congress; setting aside every law; claiui- ing the Executive power only that he shall control the ¦ great military arm of this gover,nment, and control it, if he pleases, to your ruin and the rhiu of the country. Again, sir, do we not know, may we not upon this motion^ assume, the fact that the whole business of the War Department of this couni,ry pauses .(intil this trial goes on. He will' not recognize, a^ we all know, the Secretary of War whom this body has declared the legal Secretary of War, and whom Congress, under a power legitimately exercised, has recognized as the legal Secretary of War ; aud doweiuot know, alsot, that while he has appoiuted a Secretary of War ad interim,, he dare not recognisie him, and this day, and this' hour; the whole business of the War Department stops, , Mr.Butler reminded the Senate that a gallant officer of the army, if confirmed by thera to-day, who, by right, ought to have his commission and hia pay comr meuce immediately his appointment reached bim, would have to wait if this motion prevailed for fori^ days; as long aa it took G;6d to dejstroy this world ,bv a flood tlaughter), and for what ? ,1 wonder £hat,tfi| intelligent and able counsel might delay the trialstiU longer when one department of the government was already thrown into confusion while they were blamed. , , ¦ But, he continued, that is not all. The great pulse of the nation beats in perturbation while, this strictly constitutional but wboUy anomalous proceeding goes- on, and it passes fitfully when we pause, and goes for-. ward when we go forward, and the very question to day in this country is arising out of the desire of men to have business interests settled, to have prosperity returu, to have the spring open ae {ii3^p]@ipu6ly under \ 34 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. our laws as it will under the laws of natnfeei t[ say the very pulse of the nation-beats here, and beating fft- fully requires us to still it by bringing this respondent to justice, from which God give him deliverance, if he ,80 deserves,, at thp earliest possible hour consistent with his riffht. Mr. Butler tihen urged that while all the time, shown to be necessary when the case comes to trialshould be granted, no lime shonld be fixed in advance. They should not preeuihe in advance that the respondent ¦could not get ready. Let him put in his answer, and then, if lie showed the absence of necessary witnesses, the manacrers would either acquiesce in a proper delay or admit all that he eoughtto prove by the testimony. Ee would not deny the respondent asingle indulgence consistent with public safety. They asked' no more privileges than tbey were willing to grant to him. The great act for which he was to be brought to the bar was committed on the 21st of February. He knew its consequences just as well as lhej[ did. TheHouse pf Eepresentatives had dealt with it on the 22d. 'On the 4th of March they had brought it before the Se riate, with what they called its legal 'consequences ; and now they were here ready for trial- instant trial. Some Judges had sat twenty-two hours in the day ou ' the trial oT great crimes ; and they^ God giving them strength, would sit here every day and every hour, to bring this trial to a conclusion. He knew exactly what he had done; th^y had granted hini more time, and now they ask thathe Should be prepared then to meet them. He hoped hereafter, no ,man anywhere would say that the charges "upoh which Andrew Johnson was arraigned were frivolous, nnsiib?tantiait or of no effect,* when counsel of the highest respectability, whd wonld not, for their lives, say what they did not believe, told the Senate that.*with all their legal ability they could not jiut iu an answer to the charges, so grave were they, U less than forty days, yea fitty days. Mr. Butler concluded after recapitulating the considerations which he thought Ought to influence them in deciding this question by reminding them that ¦ a speedy termination of the trial eithftnway would -.bring quiet to the country, and praying them not to decide this question, upon wbi.ch the life of the nation depends— the greatest question that ever canie before any body-^on auy the ordinary analogies of law. Mr. isELSON, of counsel for the President, said:— I have endeavored, in coming here, to divest my mind of the idea that we are engag:ed in a political discus- Bion, arid have tried to he impressed buly with the ' thought that we appear before a-tribunal sworn to try the great question which has been submitted for its consideration, and to dispense justice and equity be- 'tween two of the greatest powers, if 1 may so express myself, of the land. Ihave come here onder the im pression that there is much force in the observation, which the honorable manager (Butler) made, that this tribunal is not to be governed by the rigid rules of law. but is disposed to allow the largest liberty, J>oth to 'the honorable managers on the part of the House of ^^presentatives and the counsel on behalf of the Pre Bident. I have supposed, therefore, that there was nothing impr'oper lu our makiug an appeal to this tribunal lor tirae to answer the charges preferred, and that, in stead of that appeal being dented, much more libe rality would be extended by the Senate of the nation, sitting as a coilrt of impeachment, th«i we conld ever expect on a trial in a court of common law. It is not my purpose, Mr. Chief Justice, to enter at this stage into a discussion of the charges, although it would seem to be invited by one or two of the obser vations made by t^ honorable manager (Butler). He has told yoD that it is right' in a case of this kind to proceed with railroad speed, and that in consequence of the great iihprovements of the age, the investiga tion cif this case can be proceeded with much more speedily than it could have been a few years ago. The charges made here are charges of the greatest Import- anee. The questions which will have to be cousidered by thie honorable body are questions in which not only tho representatives ot the people are concerned, but in which the people themselves have the deepest and most lasting interest. '^ <^uestions are raised here in reference to diiferences of opinion between the Executive of the nation and the nonorable Congress, as to their constitutional powers, and as to the rights which they xespegiively claim. These are qnestioni of the ntmost gravity, and are qnestions which, iri the vjew ' that we ent?^- tain ,of them, should receive a moat deliberate consid eration on iliepa'rt of the Stioite. I ti'nst that I may be pardoned hy_ the Chief Justice and Senators for making ari'aUnSBiori to a statute which , has loug been in foBce in the iState from which I come. I only do it for the purpose of making a brief argument by an alogy. We have a statute in Tennessee wbjch has been long* in force, and which provides that where a bill of in dictment is ?odnd against aii individual, ahd he knows that, owing to excitement or other cause, be may not have a fair trial at the first-tBtm of the court, his ease shall be continued to the next tei-m of the court. The mode of proceediiu; at law is not a mode of railroad speed. If there isTanything nnder heaven, Mr. Chief Jiistice, which gives to judicial proceedings a claim to the consideration and approba^ion^-pf mankind, it is the fact that justice'and courts hasteri slowly in the in- ^veistigationof'cases presented to them. ' ' Nothintr is done or presumed to be done, in a stags' of excitement. Every moment is allowedfor calm" and mutual deliberation. Goui;ts are in. the habit of in vestigating cases slowly,, carefully, cautiously, arid _ whe^ theif form, their jnagment and pronounce their , opimoriS, arid when these opi nion s^ are published to the world they meet the sanction of jndicial and legal miuds eyervwhere, aud meet the approbation and con- » fidence of the, people before whom they are promul- fated. If ,this is .so, aud this is one of the proudest fiaracteria'tics in the form bf judicial proceedings iu courts, so much more ohght it be «o in an exalted and honorable body like this, coraposed of the greatestl^ men of the United States — of Senators revered and honored by their countrymen, and who from their po sition are preserved free from reproach and to be calm in their deliberations, I need not, tell you, sir, nor need I tell these honora ble Senators whom I address on this occasion — m*uy of whom are lawyers, and many of whom have been clothed, in times past, with the judicial ermine — that in the courts of >law the, vilest criminal who ever .was arraigned in the United Status has been given time to "prepare for trial ; and right not only to be heard by counsel, no matter how great his chirae may be, the malignity of the offense ^ith which he has been charged;' still he is tried according to tho forms of law, and is aUowed to have counsel. Continuances areigrauted. to him, ai^d.if he is unable to. obUin jus tice, tithe is given him and all manner of preparation is allowed him. If this is soin courts of common law where th^ay' are fettered and' bound by tbe iron rule to which I have, alluded, how much more so ought it to be in a great tribunal like this, whiph does not follow the forms of law, and' which is seeking alone to obtsiin justice. It is necessary for me to remind you andthe honorable Seuators, that upon a page bf fooJacap there may be a. bill of indictment prepared against an individual which might require weeks in the investi gation. It is unnecessary to remind this honorable body that itis au easy thing to make charges, butthatlt is often a laborious and difficult thing to make a defense against those accuEiations. Reasoning trom the analogy tound' by such pro- ceetWigs at law. I earnestly maintain .before this hon orable body that suitable tirae ahould be given us tp answer the charges preferred here. A large number of the charges involve an inquiry running back to. the very foundation of the govern- -ment; they iuvoive an examination of tbe preeedeuts that have been sanctioned Oj different admiuistra^ tious ; they involve, in short, the most exteusive ranga of inquiry; and the last two. charges presented by thP House of Representatives, if I may be pardoned fof using an expression of the view I ^entertain of tbiih, open up Paiiidora^a box. and will causis the iuvestigft- tion as to the great' differences of opinion which ex isted between the President and Congress— an inquiry which, so far as 1 can perceive, will be at most inter* miuable in its .character. . Now« whatdo we^ask here for the President of the ¦ United States, the highest offlcer in this land? We ask simply that he may be allowed time for his, de fense. On whose judgment is he to rely in relation to thai? He must, in a great part, rely on the judgment of his counsel, to whom hff has entrusted his deiense. We, who are professionallyresponsible, have asserted, in the presence of this Senate, in the face of the na- IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 35 t!on and of the whole world, that we believe we will jaqnire the number o^ days to prepare, the President's answer, which was stated in the proposition sub mitted to the Senate. Such is still onr opinion. Are these grave charges to be mshed through the Senate, Bitting as a judicial tribunal, in hot haste, and with railroad speed, and without giving the President an opportunity to answer them— that same opportunity which you would give to the meanest criihinal ? I do not believe, Mr. Chief Justice aud honorable Senators, that you will hesitate one moment in giying ns all the time that we deem necessary for preparing onr defense, and what maybenecessavy to enable thia body judiciously, carefully, deliberately and cau- tiouslv, and with a view of its accountability not pnly to its couBtituents, but to poBterity, to decide this Cftse. I have no doubt that the hp.norahle Senators, in justice to themselves arid lh jiistice to the great land which they represent, will endenvor to conduct this inveetigatlbn in a'manher that will stamp the impress • of honor and jnstice upon them and upon their pro ceedings, riot only now, but jn all time to come, after ali of us shall have passed away from the stage of hu man action. ^ Mr. Chief Justice, this is an exalted tribunal. I say It in no spirit of cotiipTiment, but because I feel it. I feel that there is no more 'exalted tribunal that dould he convened under the sun, and 1 ttiay say, in answer to an observation of one of the honorable managers, that I, for one, as an American citizen, feel proud that we have assembled^ here to-day, and assembled under the circumstances which have brought us together. - -It is one of the flrst instances in the history of the world in which the ruler of a people .has been pre sented by a portion of the representatives pf the peo ple for trial before a Senato sitting i9,s a Judicial tribu nal. While that is so, it is 'equally time on the other hand that the President, through his counsel, comes here and submits himself to the jurisdiction, of this court — submits himself calmly, peaceable arid with a cdnfident reliance on the jnstice of the'honorable Se nate which is to hear his case. ¦Mr. Chief Justice— I sincerely hope that the resolu tion offered hy the Senator from Ohio will me'ipLthe approval bf this liottorablc body. I hope that time will be giveu, and that .these proceedings which in all time to come, will be quoted as ia precedent, will be conducted with that gravity, that dignity, and that decorum which are fit and becoming in therepresenta- tiyes of a free and great people. Senator CONKLING submitted, as an amendment. the following :r-. Ordered, That unleas otherwise ordered by the Senate for cause shown, the trial of the pending impeachment shall be proceeded with immediately after the replication shall be filed. The Chief Justice decided the ariiendmeht out of order as an amendment to an amendment offered by Senator Wilson, Senator WILSON withdrew his amendment so that Senator Copkling's amendment to the motion of Sena tor Sherman might be in order. Mr. BINGHAM said, I am instructed by the mana gers to say, that the proposition jnst suggested -by tl^e htmorable' Senator irom New York,' is entirely satis factory to the managers on the part ofthe Hoiise. and to say further, that we believe it is in perfedt accord with the precedents in this couutry. The Senate will, doubtless,' remember, that inthe trial of the Ch,ase case, when a day was fixed for the trial, the Seriate adopted an order which was substantially the same as now suggested. Itwas as follows:— " Ordered, T^hat the 4th. day of February next shall he the day for receiving the answer and proceeding ori the ii'lal of impeachineut against Samuel Chase," If nothing farther had bean said touching the original propo.'iiclpu, we woaldhave been: ppntept and satisfied to' leave the question, without further remark, to the decision of the Seuoiie; but in view of yrhm has been said, we beg leave to respond that we are chargeable with no indecent haste when \ye aiik that uo unneces sary delay shoU interpose between che people and the tri*I of a man who has beeu charged with haviug vio lated the greatest trust ever committed to a single person; trusts, which involve the- highest interests of the whole people; trusts which iavolve t^ peace of th* whole country ; trusts which involve fn some sense the success of this last great experiment of re publican government on earth. We may be par doned, further, for saying that it strikes ns with some what of surprise, without ^intending the slightest possible disrespect to any member of this honorable body,- that auy proposition shonld be.entertaiiied for a continuance in a triallike this when no formal ap plication hos been made by the accused himself. To be sure, a motion was interposed here to-day, in the face of the rules and of the law of this body, for leave to flle an answer at the eud of forty days. The Senate has disposed of that motion, and in a manner, we venture to say, satisfactory to the whole .country, as it is certainly satisfactory to the Representatives of the people at this bar/ And uow, sir, that being disposed of, aud the Senate having determined the day on which answer shall be flled, we submit,=with all due respect to theSenate that it is bu jtust to the-peopl^ Of the country that we shall await theiucomirig of that answer and the repli- casion thereto by the Representatives of the people, and then see and know what colorahle excuse will he offered either - by the President' accused in his own person, or through his representatives, w'hy this trial would be delayed a single horir^ If he be icnocent of those grave accusations, the truth wiH soon be ascertained by this enlightened body, and he has the right, in the event of the facts so appearing, to a speedy deliverance, while the country has a right to a speedy determination of this most im portant question. If, on the other hand, he be guilty of thoee:^ grave andserionecbatges, what mau isth^re, within this body or outside of it, ready to say thttt'hci - shonld; for a day or an hour longer, disgrace the high position which has been held hith^to only by' the noblest^aud most enlightened and most trustworthy of the land ? We think tbat the executive power of this nation ' should onijr be represented in the hands of the men who are faithful to theae great trusts uf the peoole. This issue has been, made with the Pi'e)8ideiit of the Uuited States, aud while we admit that there should beno indecent haste, we do demand iu the name of the people, most respectfully, that thei-e shall be no' unnecessary delay, and no- delay at all, unless good cause. ;be shown for delay in the mode and manner hitherto observed in proceedings of this kind. Senator, JOHNSON, inquired whether there was. any period flxed within which replication was to be filed 7 Mr. BINGHAM replied that replication conTd only be filed wilh the consent, and after, consultation with the House ; bnt be had no doubt that it would be done within one or two days after answer was filed. Senator CONKLING called for the enforcement of the eighteenth and twenty-third rulCs, requiring mo- tibuB to be voted on without debate. The Chief Justice ruled that debate was not in order. Senator JOHNSON said he had simply been making an inquiry. The question being^ on Senator Conkling's amend- men^o Senator Sherman's motion, the yeas and uays . wei-eniaken, aud resulted :— Yeas, 40; nays, 10, as fol lows:- YEAS.-^MeBsrfl. Anthony, Camer6U( Cattell, Chandler, ' CqIo, Couklia0, Cfmneaa, (Jorbett, Drake, Edmunds. Furry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frellnghuyseu, Grrimea, Harlan, Hen- . derson, Howard, Howe, Moreau, Morrill (M13.). MoriiU , (Vt.), Morton, Nye, Patterson (X. H.), Pomeroy, i^auiBey, KqsB, Sherman, Spragne, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tiptin, Trumbull, Van wiolkle, Willey, Williams, Wilson and YfttpB, , ..,..,. 1 NiYS-r-MeBsrs, Bayard, Buckalew^ Davis, Dixon.'' Hen dricks, McCreery, Patterson (Tenn.), iSauliBbuiQr, and Vickers; . Senator SHERMAN'S motion, as amended, was then agreed to^ ao it was ordered that uuI^^h otherwise ordered by the Senate, for qadse shown, the 1 trial of the pendirig impeachment shall proceed immediately after replicalion shall be filed. On amotion of Senator HOWARD, it was ofdered that the Senate, -aitting asa Court of Impeach^uent, adjourn until the 23d of the preaent moath, at one o'clock in the afternooii. ae^ imPBACHMBNT QF ANDREW JOHNSON. PROGEEDINGS OF MO_NDAY. MARCH 2^ The choice seats in the gallery were seewred at an early, hour by the ladies, who occupied,- at Uie Openine of the Seuate, about three-fourths of the snace allotted to the pnblic, as on the occasion ofthe organization of the Senate into a court. The floor was arranged as before. The Chaplain again invoked a blessing upon those now coming to the consideration of grave and momentons matters relating to both' Individual '¦¦ and to the national wel fare, praying that' God would preside over this high council, and tbat justice be done in the name of God, and of ail the people of this great nation. ¦Ithe Trial. At half-past twelye o'clock the Chair announced that according lo rule all legislative and executive- business would cease, and directed the Secretary of the Senate to notify the House* Mr. TRUMBULL .(111.) called for the reading of the rule, saying that he understood that one o'clock was the hour appointed. The rule was read providiDg that on the day set- apart for the trial the->Senate shall cease Executive business and legislation,, and proceed to the trial of the impeachment. . i Mr. EDMUNDS (Vt.) called attention to a snbse- qnent order introduced by Mr. Howard, 'of the Conv mittee of Seven, adjourning the court until one o'clock to-dity. This, he said, was the day set apart for re ceiving the answer, not for proceeding to tne trial. Sevpral Senators sugcested to leave it to the deci sion of the Chair. i'he Chair decided that the rnle was imperative, and business niufit now cease. . . Mr. EDMUNDS respectfully appealed from the de cision of the Chair. The Chair announced the question to be. Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate, but at the suggestion of Mr., TRUMBULL, Mr. Edmunds withdrew the appeal, and the Secretary of the Seuate was again directed to notify the House that the Senate was ready to proceed wilh the trial of the impeachment. During the interregnum Mr. Stevens entered quietly at a side door, and took hie seat at the manager's table. Chief Jnstice Chase Bnters. At 1 P. M. the President pro tenn. vacated the chair, the Chief Jnstice entered by tbe side door te the left of the chair, and called the Sbnate to order. The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation commanding silence, whereupon -the managers ap peared at the door. ' , . t , , . . The Sergeant-at-Arms announced "the mauagers of the iriipeachmen^'Op the part of the House of Repre sentatives," and, the Chief Justice said, "The mana gers will take the seats assigned. by the Senate." Messrs. Bingham and Boutwefl led the way up the aisle, and they took their seats. - i '. tu the meantime Messrs. Stanbery, Curtis, Nelson, EvajTts And Groesbeck,3eated themselves at their table in the order nanied, Mr. Stanbery occupying the ex treme right. The Sergeant-at-Arms then announced "the House of Representatives," and the memhers of the House appearedv'pneceded' by Mr,-' Waehhtirnfe,' ori' Ch^arm of Mr. McPherson, Clerk of the Hous^, and took their seats outside the'bar. ^ By direction of the Chief Jnstice, tbe Secretary of the Senate then read tbe minutes of the proceedings of Friday, the 13th insf;. Mr. DOOLITTLE (Wis.) was called *y the Clerk, and came forward and took the oalfh. ' < - Senator DAVIS (Ky.) said— Mr. Chief Justice, I rise to mah,e the same prouosition to this couvt that I made tpithe Senate. I think now is the appropriate time, before the Senate proceeds to make up the tiase, I, therefore, submit to tbe court a motion in writing. The Secretary rSaff'-as follows:— Mr, Davie, a member of th^ Senate in the Court of Impeachment, moved the coiirt to make this order:— That the Constitution having invested the Senate with, the sole power to try the arCiclea of impeachment of th'e" President of the United States, preferred bv the House of Kepresentatives, and having provided that, the Sdtaate Bhall ne composed of ,two Senators from each Sta^, to be chosen bythe Legislature thereof; arid, the States of Vir- einto, North Gar51ma-, South Caruliriii. !G,66rgia. Alabama, MuBiBsippi, Arkansas, Texas, Loui»ftrfand FloHC&,1iav^ mg each chosen two Senators who have been excluded ft-om theur seats respectively :— Ordered, Thafc tiie Court of Impeachment for the trial of t the President cannot be legally and constitutionally- formed while the S,enatQrs frpm tHe States afprcBaid are thus excliSded frbm the Senate, and ^hich ohjectiqn.con- tinue« iiMtil Senators frora those States are ^crmittea to . take their seats in the Senate, subject to all constitutional exceptions and objections to their return and quaUneatipn ¦ Senator HOWARD— Mr. President— . > The Chief Juatice— The qdestion mnst be decided- without debate. ' Senator HOWARD— I object to the receiving of the>; paper. Seuator CONNESS (Cal.)— I desire to snbnjit a , mption which will meet the, case. I move that the motion be not received, upon which 1 call for the yeae and nays. . '!_ Senator HOWE (Wis.)— I rise to submit a question , of order. - The Chief Ju'stice— The Senator wUl state his point , of order. Senator HOWE— I wonld ask if the motion offered f by the Senator from Kentucky bg in order 7 The Chief flustice-The motion comes- before the > Senate in the form of a mption, submitted by a mem- ; ber of the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment,,! The twenty^third rule requ,i,aes that allthp ordprs aud decisions shall be made and had by y^as and nays, which shall be entered on the record, and without-de* bate, subject, however, to the operation of rule seven. The seventh rule requires thd presiding officer to, in the flrst instance, submit to the Senate, without a di- ? vison, all questions of evidence and incidenial ques tions, bnt the same shall,, on demand of one-flfth of; the members present, be decided by yeas and nays- The question then, being on a proposition submitted,.^ by a Senator under the twenty-third rule, it is in order. Mr. CONNESS— Mr. President, is the. motion snh- ; ihitted by me in order? the Chief Justice— No sir. . The call for the yeas and nays were ordered, and they were called. Messrs. Davis and McCreery ouly voting yea. Me^^.r^. Saulsbury, Bayard and Wade did not'vote. So the motion was not agreed to. Mr. STANBERY then rose and said— Mr, Chief Jus tice, iu Obedience to thp ordei* of this honorable court, ; made at the last session, that the auswer of the Presi dent should be filed to-day, we have it ready. The' cdunsel for the Presideutj abandoning; , all other busi ness— sonie of us leaving our courts, our cases and our^ clients— have devoted every hour to the consideratiori of this case. The labor has been incessant. We have devoted, as I say, not only every hour ordinarly de voted tO; badness, but many required for necessary rest and recreation have beeu consumed in it. It is a matter of regretithat the court did not. allow ns more tiine for preparation; nevertheless, we hope that the answer will be.fo.nnd in all respects ^ sufficient. Such as it is, we are now ready to read and file it. Mr. CURTIS procee<^^d to read the auswer. The Freaiclent's Ans-wer. To the Seuate of the United Statee sitting asa court of impeachment for the trial of Andrew John? son. President of the United States- The answer of the s'aid Andrew Johnson, President Ol the United States, to the articies of impeachment i exhi)3ited against him by the ip^Quse of Represeuta- tl'ves qf the United States. Answer to article %. For answer to the first' article hq says that Edwin M. Stanton was appointed Secre tary for the Department of War. on the 15th day of January, 1S63, by Abraham Lincoln, theu Fresidenti of the United States, during the flrst term of his Presidency, and was commissioned according to the Const,ituti6n and the laws of the United States to hold said office during the pleasure of. the Presi dent; that the pffice of Secretary, for the Depart ment of War was created by an act of the First Congress in its first session, passed on the Tth d^y of August, A. D. lT89, and in and by that act it was pro-, vided and enacted that the* said Secretary for the De partment of War shall perform arid execute snch. duties ae shall from tirae to time b'e enjoined on and intrusted to hiriTby the President of the Uuited States, agreeably to the Constitution, relative to the subjects within the scope ofthe said department; and further more, that the said Secretary shall conduct the busi*-' ness of the said department in such a manner as the' President ofthe United States shall from time to time order and instruct; and this respondent, further ^swering, says that, by iovm -of 'Tihft act aforesaid ffud by reason of his appointment, the said Stanton t^ecame the principal offlcer in oue of the Execatire IMPEACHMENT OF UNDREW JOHNSON.; 37, Departments of tbe government, within tne trae in tent and meaning of the second section of the se cond article of the Constllntion of the United Scates ; and according to tbe trne Intent and meaning of that prorision of the Constitntion of the TJpited States, and in accordance with the settled and nniform practice^ of '.each and every President of the United States, the aaid Stanton then became, and So long as he should continne to hold the said offlce of Sfecre- ' tary for tbe Department of War, mast continue tp be one of the advisers of the President of the United sutes, as well aa the person intrusted to act for and represent the President in matters enjoined upon bim or intrusted to him by the President touching th6 de- pjtrtment aforei^aid, and for whose conduct iu snch cttpacity sdbordiqate to the President, the President is, by the Constitntion and laws of the United States^ made responsible ; and this respondent further an swering, says;— He succeeded to the offlce of Presi dent ofthe United States upon Snd by reason of the de^ith of Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States, on tbe ISth day of April, 136B, and the said Stanton was then holding the said office of Secre tary for the Department of War, under and by reason of the appointment and commission aforesaid, and not bavine been removed from the said offlce by tliis respondent, the 6 1867.-^ Sir:— Your'note of this day has^be^n received, stating that public consideratioDS of a nigh character constrain you to B^y that my resignation as Secretary of War willbe ac cepted. In reply« 1 have the honor to aay that public con- BiaeratiouB of a nigh character, which alone have induced me to continue at the head of thiB department, cODstrain me not to resign the oflice of Secretary of Wai> beStae the next meeting of Gongresa., very rcBcectfulJy, yours, (Signed) ^WIN M. STANTON. This respondent, a^, President of tbe United States, was thereop of opinion that, havipg regard to the necessary official relations and. dtiti^S of thp Secre tary for the'Departmentot War to fhe Frestdjiiit of the United States, according to the ^Constitution, and laws of the United States, and. having regard. to the, responsibility of the Fresidept for the condnct pt the said'Secretany ; and having regard to the paramount executive authority of the office which the respondent holds ander the Constitntion and laws of the United States, it was impossible, consistently with the pablic ihterests, to allow the said*Stanton to continne tohold the said office of Secretary for the Department ' of War ; and It then became the offimiftli datj of the re spondent, as President of the United States, to con sider and decide wbat act or acts should and might lawfully be done by him,, as President of the Uuited. States, to cause the said Stanton to surrender the said office. This respondent was informed, and verily believes, that it was practically settled by the first Congress of the United Slates, and had been . so conaidered and uniformly and in great numbers of instODces, acted oa, by each Congress and Presideni of the United Slatea in succession, from President Washington to and in cluding President Lincoln, and from the first Oon-' gress to the Thlrt.T-niuth Congress; chat the Consti tution of the United Scates conferred on the Presi dent, 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 failh fully execnted, the power at any and all times of re- iraovingfrom offlce-all executive officers for cause to ; be judged of by the President alone. This respondent had, in pursuance of the Consti tntion, required the opinion of each principal officer of theBxecuIive departments upon this queEtlou of constitutional e*ecuCive power and duty, and had been advised by each of them, including the said Stanton, Secretary for tbe Department of War, that , under the Constitution of the United States this power was lodged by tbe Constitution in the Presi dent of the United Slatea, and that consequently it. could be lawfully exercised by him, and the Congress, couldnot deprive him thereof: and this respondent,. in his capacity of President of the United Stales,, ¦ and because in that capacity, he was both enabled and bound to nse hie beet judgment upon thie: question did, in good faith, and with an honest. desire to arrive at tbo truth, come to the conclu sion and opinon,. and did make the same known' to the honorable the> Senate of the United States, by a message dated on the second day of March, 1807, a true copy whereof is - hereunto annexed aud marked A, that the power last mentioned was conferred, and the duty of exercising it in fit cases. was impt)sed on the President by the Constitution of the United States, and tbat the President conld not be deprived of this power or relieved of this duty ; nor could the same be vested by law in tbe President and tbe Senate jointiy, either in part or whole, and this has ever since remained, and was the opinion of this respondent at the time when he waa forced, as aforesaid,' to consider and decide wbat/ act or acts shonld and might lawfully be done by this respondent, as President bf the United States, to cause the said Stanton to surrender the said office. This respondent was also then aware that by the first section of an act regulating the tenure of certain civil offlces, passed March '3; 186T, by a constitucional majority of both Houses of Congress, it was enacted as follows : — That every pereon holding any civil office to which he has been appointed by and with tne advice and con&ent of the Senate, and every person who BhaU hereafter bc ap pointed to any such otfice, and ahall become diil.v (lualiiied td act therein, is and ah^ll he eutitled to hold such oflice until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified, except as herein 'otherwise provided. *' * . * Provided, That the Secretarica of State, of tho Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and ofthe Interior, the Postmaster-General and, the Attorney*Generaf, shall hold, ¦ their offices respectively for and during the term of tho, 'President bv whom they may have been appointed, and for one month thereafter, subject to removal Dy and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This respondent was also aware that thie act wa, understootl and intended to be an expression of the; opinion of the Congress by which that act was passed ;, that tfie power to.remove executive officers for cause, might, by law, be taken from the President, and. vested in faim and the Senate jointly; and although this ¦ respondent had arrived al and still retained the opinion above expressed, apd veritably believed, aa hii, ^t^i , bem^e^, ttiat the said flrst section ot the last mentibned act was and is wholly inoperative ^pd vpid,^ by reason ot its conflict with the Constitution of the' United State's : yell, inasmuch as the same had been eiitfCted by the, constitutional majority in each of tbe two Houses of thi^t Congress, thia respondent con sidered it to be proper tio be examined and de cided whether the narticular case of the said.Stanton, bn which it was this respondent's dnty to act, wa» within or withont the terms of that first section ofthe act, or 4f within it, whether the President had not the power, according tb the terms of the act, to re move the said Stanton fi^om the office bf Secretory for the Department of War, and haTing, in his capacity at 38 IMPEACHMENT .OF ANDREW* JOHNSON. President of the United States, so eiamiiied and con- Bidered, did form the opinion that the case ofthe said Stanton and hia tenare of offlce werenbtaffected by the first section ol the last-named act. And this re spondent further answe^ng, says, tliat although a case thus existed which, In his judgment, as President of the United States, called fbr the exercise of the Executive power to rembve the said Stanton from the ' offlce of Secretary for the Department of War: ind although this respondent was of opinion,'as is above shown, that under the Conatilntion of the U-ntted Scales the power to remove the aaid Stanton from the said office was vested in the President of the United Stetes ; and although this respondent was also of the opinion, as is above shown, that the case of the said Stanton was not affected by the flrst section of thedast-named act; and although each of - the said opinions had been formed by this respondeat : upon an actual case, requiring him, in his capacity of ' President ofthe United Statea, to come to some judg ment and determination thereon, yet the respondent, as President of the United States, desired and deter mined to avoid if possible any question of the constmc tion and effect ofthe said first section ot the laat-named - act, and also the broader question ot the executive power conferred on the President of the United States by the Coustitntion of the United States to remove one of the principal offlcers of one of the Executive Depart ments for cause seeming to him sufficient; and this re- ; spondent also desired and determiued that, if from . causes over which he could exert no control, it ahould become absolutely necessary lo raise and have insome ' way determined eilher or both of thesaid last-named, qnestions, it was in accordance with the Consti-, tution of the United States, and was required of the Bresident thereby, that qnestions of so much gravity and importance, upon which the Legislalure'.and Exe- , cutive Departments ot the. government had disagreed, , which involved powers considered, by all branches of. tbe government daring its entire history dowji to the year 1S6T, to h ave been confided , by. the Constitution of the United Scales to the President, and to be ue(ies-. sary for the complete 'and proper execution of his con-. stitutional dutiesi "Should bein some proper way sub-i mitted lo that jndicial department of the government intrusted by the Constitution with the power, and sub jected by it'ito the dulyj, not. only of determining: finally the Constitution and effectot all acts of Con gress, by comparing them with the Constitution of the : United States,'and pronouncing them inoperative when i found in conflict with that fuudameu^al law which the people have enacted for ,the government of all tbeir servats, 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 flt person in .the .place of Mr. Stanton as one of his ' advisers, who is as a principal df a subordinate offlce, whose official conduct. he was re sponsible for, and had a lawful right to control, might, , if possible, be accomplished withoiit the necessity . of raising any one ot the questions aforesaid ; and second, ' it these duties could not so be performed, then that these questions, or such of them as might necessarily - arise, ahould "be judicially determined in manner atore- ' said, and tor no other end or purpose. This respon-. dent, as President of the Itnited States, on the 12ih day of August, 1367, seven days after the reception of the letter ot the said Siantou ot the Sth of August, liereiu before stated, did issue to the said Slanton the order following, viz. :^ , Executive Mansiojj, Washington, Aug. 13, 1867,— Sir;. -f^By virtue of the power and authority vested lu me as ' President, by the Cpnatitution and lawa 01 the IJniled. Scates, you are hereby auapended from office as Secretary of War, and will cease to exercise any and all functions ' pertainmK to the 'aame. You will at once transfer to Gonj ' Ulyaaes 3. Grant; who has this day. beenmuthorizcidia'Udi empowered to acjt-.aa Secretary of War ad vnterisrn,, all re-. cords, books., papera and other public property now in your custody and charge. Hon. E. M. Stanton,'Secretary of War. To which said order the said Stanton made the fol lowing reply: — „ "Wae DEPAETMENT,. Washington Crrv, Aug. 13, 18^7.— . Sir :— Your note of, this date haa been received, mformlng me that, by virtue of the powers veated ih you a? Pre sident by tho CohstiltitioB aud laws of the United' StatcB, I ' am suspended from Offi66' aa Secretary of War, and will cease to exercise any and all functions pertaining to the. aame, aud also diroccing mo, at once , to transfer to Oreueral. Ulyascs S. Gra^t, who haa this day been autliorized and empowered, toacf-as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, pajfera and other'pnblic pi'operty now in mycnatoay atid charge. Under a aenee ot public duty I ^m corapelled to deuy your right, under the Constitution ^d Uws of tbe United States, vsitholit the advice and advice and conaent to compel me' to transfer to an.v poraph,, the recorda, booka," papera and public property in my cus tody aa Secretary: hut inasmuch aa the General com-' commanding the armiea of the United Statea has been ap pointed ad interfm, and has notified me that he has ao> cepted the appointment, I have no. alternative but to submit, under jEirotest. to superior force. . . "To the President." 0. , And1;his respondent, further answering, says that it; is provided in and by the second section of an act to regdlate' the tenure of certain ciyil'offices, that the PreWdent may ehs'pend an offlcer from the perform ance btthe duties of the office held by him, for certain canses thereiu designated, until the ne£t meeting of the Senate, ahd until the case ishall be acted on by the ' Sttnate; that this respondent, as President of th€ ' United States, was advised, and he verily believed and', still believes, that tlie executive power of removal froih bffice confided to him by the Constitution as aforesaid, includes the power of suspension from of fice at the p'leaaurb of the President ; and this respon- deni;, by.the ord^f foresaid, did suspSnd' the said", Stantoii from dffice, not until the next Ineeting of the Senate or until the Senate should have sct^d'Upon the , cjiSe, ;but by force of the power and attthorily vesteS ^ in him hy the Constitution and laws of the United States, indeflnitely, and at the pleasure of i)xe Presi: d^nt ; and the order, in form aforeR'aid,- waS . made l^'nbwn tp the Senate ot theTTnlted States on the 12th dayot Decehiber, A. D. 1867, aa will be more fully,' h^r^einafter stated. And this respondent further answering. Bays in and by the act ot February 12, 1795, it was among other' thipga provided aud enacted that m case ot vacancy ih'the office ot Secretary' tor the Departmeut ot War, itsh^ll be lawful for the President, 'in ease that ha shi^U think it naceeaary to -inthbriie' any peerson to pertorm.'the dpties of that bfflce, until'a successor bo appointed, br such vacancy 'filled, bnt not exceeding the term of six mtmths; and this respondent beipg advised and believing .that such'law wa's in full forc^'. ahd not repealed, by an orcier dated Ailgnst 12, 1861; dM authorize and empower'UIysses'S. -Gritnt, General' of the armies ot'tho TJnited S'tates';'tb iiiit' as Secretary of War ad int'enim,' in the form of which similar an Cho- rily had theretofore been given.hoi rintil the next nVeet- ing of the Senate* and until the Seirale' should act ou the base, bat at the pleasure ot the President, subject only to the limitation of six moiiihs in llfB*' said laat mentioned act contained, and a copy ot the last named order' was raade kubwn td the Seuate ofthe United'Statea oh the 12th day of De--' cember. A, D. 1857, as vvill be hereinaft|it more fully stated, and in' pursaanceT of the desi^fi ahd intention aforesaid, it it should become n'ecea«fary, to sabmit the s%id question to a judicial detercimation, thia respondent, at or near the date bf the last mentioned order, did make known snch his purpose to obtain ' a judicial decision of thb said questions, or such of them aa ipigbt be' necessary; anti this repond- eht further answbring, pays tha't in further pursuahce of his jnlention and design, it possible,' tb perform what he ji^'dged to be his imperative duty to prevent ;t66 said Stinton frofn longer' holding the office ot Se cretary tor the Department of -War, and at the tfauia tune fivoidjng, ft poBsit}le, any questibn respecHhg the extent ot the power of rafnOVU from executive ! offlcecdnflded to lihe President hy the; Constitntioo. pf the United States, and any question {respecting tfiecono struction and effect of the first section pf tbe Beiid'"act regulating the tenare of certain civil officers," (while he ahonld not by any act of his abandon and relinquish either a powec which he believed the Constitutibu had conferred on the President of the Ui^itad ,St^teB to en able him to perferm the duties jOf his 'ofnce, or a power designedly left to him by the first section of the act of Congress last aforesaid, this respondent did on the ISth day of December, 1S67, tranNtaitIo the Senate ot ths United States a message, a copy whereof is taereiiiitp aunexed and marked B, whbrem he inadei known ^e orders aforoaaid, and the reasons- which ba'd indnceS^ the same, sb far as this reapnudent then considered it material and ta^cbsliary thai' the aame ahould be set forth, and reiterated his views concern ing the cousintatiohal t>o^er of removal vested in the President, ' and alsb ekptessed bia views cohcerning the construction of ' the aaid^ firEt scctioa'of the IsBt-montioned' aot aa reapeoted ths, power ot the President to remove tho said Stanton from the aaid oftieo of Secretary 'for the Departuiont ot .War; woU, hoping that, thia rosfandejit could thua perforra what he then believ,^ and, stju heUevea to be Ida impeta- IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. SALMON P. CHASE. Chief Justice of the United States. (3) IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOi^NSON. 3& tive duty in reference to the eaid Stanton, without de- rog iting from the powers which, thia I'espondont be lieved WQre confided to the Preeident by the Cunetitu- tion and laws, and without the necessity of raising judltiftliy anv queBtioqs respecting the same. And thia reapoudent, furtiier answering, Ha,^'^ t|iat this hope not Jiaving . been realized, the President ^-as compelled either to allow the said Stanton to resume the' said office and remain therein, contrary to the settled conVictionB of the President formed ia aforesaid, respecting the poWer confided to him and the duties required of nim by the Constituti' n of the United Statea, and contrary tb the ipinioti forraed an aforet-aid, that the first section of the last-mentioned act did not affect the case of the said Stan ton, and contrary to ihe fixed belief of the President, that he could no longer adviEO with or trust or be responsible for the said Stanton in the said office oi Secretary for the Department of War. or else he 'ivaa compelled to take sflch steps aamight,in the judgment of the President, be lawful nnd necessary to raise for a judicial decision the questions affecting the laifffdl right of the eaid Stanton to resume the aaid office, or the po^j'er ofthe said Stanton to ^persist in refusing to fjult the said office, if he ahould peraiBt in ac tually refusing'to quit the same ; to this end and to this end enly, this respohdent did, on tho Slat d^y of February, 1868, iseile the 6rder for the removal of the said Stanton, in the said first article mentioned and e^t forth, and the order authorizing the said Lorcnao Fj Thoinaa.to act ^s Secre tary of Wivr aci interim,in the saidBecond'iirticle setforth; amd fbis vospoudent proceeding to answer speciiically each BUbstan'tial allcgatio|i in said first article, says :~t ,' He deuiea that the said Stanton on the 2l8t day of Feb ruary, 1,868, waa lawfuUy in possession of the said office of Secretary for 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 hf tbe President of the United Statea. He denies that the eaid order for the removal of the aaid Stanton was unlawfully issued. He denies that the said order was isBued with intent to violate the act entitled "An act to regulate tho tenure of certain civil offices." He denies that the said order waa a violation of the last-mentioned act. He denies that the Said order was a violation of the Constitution of the United Statea, or of any law ^thereof, o^ of hia o&th of office. He denies that the aaid order was issued with an inteht to violate the Constitu tion of the United States, or any law thereof, or this re spondent's oath of ofiice; and he respectfully but earnestly insists that not only waa it iasued by him in the perfor mance of what he believed to be an iraperative official duty, but in the performance of what this honorable court will consider wasin point Of fact an imperative official duty; andhe denies that anv and all eubstahtive matters in the Said first article contained, in manner and form aa the aarae are therein atated and set forth, do by law con stitute a high raisdemcnnor in office within the true intent and meaning of the Conatitution of the United. Staites, Ansvver to Article S. For an'Bwer to the second article this respondent says that he admits he did issue and deliver to said Lorenzo Thomas the said writing aet forth in said second article, hearing date at Washington, D. C, February 31, 1868, ad- dreseed to Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomaa, Adju tant-General United States Army, 'WaBhingtoB: and he further admits that the same was so iaaued without tho advieo and consent of the Senate ofthe United States, then la fiost -atated iu tho escception aet forth in hia auswer to said arti cle fourth. Auaiwer to Article 8« And for answer to the said eighth article,'thi8 respond- , ent deniL-s that on the 2l8t day ofT?ebruary, 1868; at Wash- , ington aforeaaid, -or at any other time and place, he did issue and deliver to the said Thoraas the sjiid letter Of authority set forth in the eaid eighth article, with the iu tent unlaw'fiilly to control the disbursehieint of the mon'ey appropriated for tho military service 'an'd for the Depart ment ot War; this respondent, protdstihgthaff there Was a vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Departraent of War, admits that he did isaue the aaid letter of authority, and h; denies that the warae was with anjf unlawful intent whatever, eitlitrr to violate the Constitution erf the United States, or any act of Congress. On the pontrary. this re spondent again affirraa that hia sole intent to -^indicate hia autlinrity as President ofthe UnitedStatea, and- by peace ful meami to bring the question of the right of the said' Stanton to continue to hold the aaid office of ¦Secretary of War toto a final decision before .the Suprerae Court ofthe United States, aa has bi'en hereinbefore setforth, aiidhei araya the same benefit from his anawer in the preiniaeH as if the sarae were here again repeated at lehgth. Answer to Article 9* And for answer to tho aaid ninth article, the respondent states, that on the said 32d day of 'February,il868, the fol lowing notcfwas addressed to 4,he ^atd Emory, "by the pri-, vate Secretary of respondents— - ExEooTiva Mansion* Wabhinoton, D. C, Feb. 22,: 1868.— General :— The Preaideut deairels me to say that he' will be pleased to have you call upon him as early aa pos sible; Reapectfully and truly yours. WiLLlAftJG. MOUREi United StatopArmy.' General Emory called at the Executive Mansion accord-i ing to this request. Tha object of respondent waa to be adviued by Geuural Emory, Commandant of the Depart ment 6i Washington, what cl^anges hftd beeh made in the nvilitary affairs of the Departmontk, Respondent had' been informed that various changes had been made; which lU' Ite wise had been-bfought to his notice.'or reported to him '^tom the Department ' of Whi*ior from any other quarter bad he obtained the facts. General Em^ry had explained in detail the changes which had taken place. Said Emorv called tho attention of rcjspondent to a general ordor which he referred to, and which this .respqndent thon sent for, "When it waa produced it way as follo'wS :— Was . Dbpabtmest, AujDTANT-GBNsaA£*s Offiob, ft WAflinNGTON, D. C, March 14, 1867, -General Orders, No. 17;— ^rhe fallowing acte of Oimgresi* are published tor th« inibrmatiim and government of all concerned:— Public, No.85. To making appropriations' for the support of the army for year euflins 'June, 3u, 1868, andfor otper ^'sSinn 2. Arid -he it further enacted. That the head r quartcr.-d thia respondent, further answering the tenth article iiiidthe specification^ thereof, says that at Cleveland, in till/ State of Ohio, and on the 3d day of September, in the ^ i'!)r 1^6, he waa attended by a large assemblajge of his i Uow citizens, and in deference and obedience totheir csill and demand^ he addressed them upon matters of pub lic and political consideration, and this respondent be lieves that aaid occasion and addreas are referred to in thtt^ second specification of the touth article ; but this re- Bp>mdent does not admit that the naasagcs therein set t'H-th, as if extracts from a speeeh of thii* reapondent on waid oceasion^ correctly or justly present hie apeech or ad- drci^Srupon Pftid 'Occasion, but, on tho oontrarv, this respon- d.'Ut demands and iu-iiats that, if this honorable court ahall deem the said article, and the said second specifica tion thereof to contain allegation of matter cognizable by thife honorable cmirt aa a high misdemeanor in office, with in the intent and meaning of the Constitution of the Uniti-d Sriuies, and shall receive or allow pr>>of in support of the samcthat proof shall berequircd to be made ofthe actual speech aua^ddreas of thia respondent on aaid occasion, W'ioi thia respondent denies that said article and speclfi- caf ion contUns. or correctly or juatly repreaenta. And thia respondent, further answering the tenth article a.td the apecihcationa thereof, says that at St. Louis, in the bci^t« of Missouri, and oUjthe Bth day of September, in the vi'iir H66, he vjaa attencl(?d by a numerous asaemblage of lii^t tcUow-cltizens, and in dcierenceand obedience totheir c.tll nd demand, he addressed them upon matters of fiublic and political consideration, aiid this respondent be- ieve-i that said occasion and addreas are referred toih t lO third':jpecification bf'liie tenth article; but thia re spondent does not adiult that the passages therein setforth as if extracts froin a speech of this respondent on said oc ca ion, correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said occasion; buton the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that if this honorable court shall d. em thei^said article andthe said third apecification thereof to coi^taiuaUo^ation of .matter cognizable by thia houorable court aa a high misdemeanor in ofiice, withiu the intunt and meaning of the Courftitution of the United States, and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that pr6of Shall berequired to be made ofthe actual apecch and addresS' of this respondent on aaid occasion, which this respondent denies tliat the aaid article and specifica- tion contains, qr correctly or justly renresenta, Aud thia respondent further an^werinK the tenth article, Srdteatiug that he haa not been ^inraindful of the high utiea of his offlee, or of the harmony or courtesies which ought to exist and be raaintained between the executive aodlegislativcbranchoa- of the ^overnment'Of the United Statea ; denies that ho has ever intended or designed to set aside the rightfHl_ authority or powera of Congress, or at tempted to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, conUmipt or raproach. the CpngrcHa of the Uuited States, or eitlier blanch, or to impair or deatr.y the regai-d or respect of all or auy of tho gbod people of the Lnited States for the • :on- groea or the rightful power thereof, or to excite the odium or resentraent ot all or any of tho gnod people of the Lnited totates agamet Conm-eaa and the laws byitdidy audconBtitutionalLy enacted. . ™s respondent furthur saya. that at all times he has, in his official acta as Preeident, recog r, ized the authority of the sevcial Congresses of the United States as consti tuted and organized during hia administration ofthe olhceofPrcaidentot tho United Statea; and thia respond ent^ further .anawering, aaya that he has frora tiuie to tirae, under hia Conatitutmual right and duty as President of the United States, com'nunicated to Oongress his viuws and opinions in regard to such acts or reaolutiona thereof as, being aubiuitted to him as frcaident of the United States, in pureuauce of the Conatitutioti, seemed to this re spondent t6 require such comumnication ; and he haa from tune to tirae^ in the exercise of that freedom of apeech which belonga to hira aa a citizen of tho United States, and in his political relations ae President of the United States to the people of the United States as upon fit occasions a duty of the highest obligation expressed to his fellow citizens hia views and opiniuna, respecting thera aa such, and proceed ings of Congreaa, and that in BHch addresses to his fellow citizens, audio auch hiti communicationa to Congi-edd he .has expreased hisTiews, opinions aud judgmentof and concerning the actual conatitution of the two houaea of Congreaa, without repreaentation therein of certain dtates of the Union, and of the effect that in wisdora aud justice, in the opinion and judgment of this respondent, Congress in its lcgi--5lat\on' and proceedings should given to this political circumstance, and whatsoever he as thus communicated to (Jongrcse, or addressed to his fellow-citizens or any asaemblage thereof, thia perfpondent aays vvas and ia wijihin aud aecordiug to his right aud privilege as an Americjiu citizen, and his right and d'lty as Prefident of the United States; and this respondent, not waivinz or at all disparaging his right of freedom of opinion and of freed ira of speech, as hereinbefore or here inafter more particularly aet forth, but claiming and in- siatlug upon the same. ' Further, answering the aaid tenth article, says that the views and opinions expreaaed by this reipondent in his said addresses to the. aaaeiu blages of his fellow citizcna. as in said artfcle or in this answer thereto mentioned, are not, and were not intended to be other or difi'erent from those expresaed by him in hiscommunicationsto Congn^aa; that the eleven Statea latel/ in inziurrection never had ceaaed tq be States of the Union, and that they were then entitled to representation in Gougress by loyal Repre- aentativea and Senatora, as fully as the lOtner Statea of the Union, aud that, conaequontly, the Congreaa aa then constituted was not, in fact, a Congress of all the States, but a Congress of ouly a part of the States. Thia respondent, alwavs protesting ag^iUit the unauthorized excluHion thei'efrom of the aaid eleven States, nevertheleaa gave his asaent to all lawa pasaed by said Congreaa, vvhich did uot, iu his opinion and judgment, violate the Couatitu- tion, exercising his constitutional authority of returuing bilU to aaid Congress* with hij objections, when they ap peared to him to be unconstitutional or inexpedient. But further, this re9pond^Jut has aUo exprcesed the opin ion, both iu his communi .ations to Congre a^ and in his addres.-jes to the people, that the policy adopted by Con gress in reference to tno States lately in insurrection did not tend to peace and hanuuuy aud union, but, on the con trary, did tend to di^unrou and the permanent ditjruption of the States, und that in following its aaid policy laws had been passed by Congress in violation of the fundamental firinciplesofthe government, and which tended to couao- idatioa and deapotiara, and such being his d.'liberate o])in- ioua, he would have felt himself uumiudiul of the high duties of his ofiice if he had failed to express them in liis coramuuications to Congrosa or in his addresses to the people, when called upon bv them to express his opinions on, matters of public and political consideration. And this respondent, further answering the tenth ar ticle, says that ho, has al^vays claimed and insisted, und noW' claims and iusi:itSj that both in hia per-sonal and private canacity of a citizen of the United States, and lu the political relations of the President ot the Uniud Stated to the people of the United States— whose servant, under the dutiea and responsibilities of the Constituti )Q of the United States, the President of the United States ia, and should always reinaia— thi.^ respoudent had aud has the fidl right, and, iu hii office of President ot the United States, U held to the high duty of tormmg, and and on fit occaeiona oxpres-ing opinions of aud eouceiu- iog the legislatiou of Congress, proposed or completed, in respect of its wisdom, expediency, justice, uurthi- ness, objects, nurposes and pilblic and politwal moti es and tendencies, and within and aa a part^ of such right and duty, to form and on fit occasiona to expreas opin ions of and concerning the public chai-acter and con duct, views, purposes, objects, motiviB and tcndeucies of all men engagecf in the public service, a i well iu Con- gross as otherwise, aud uuder no other rules or liniiLs UDon tliis right of freedom of opinion aud of freedom of speech, or of responsibility and amenability for tlie ac tual exercise of such fre-dvm of opinion and freedom of aneech, than attend upon such righta aud their ex ercise oh the part of alt other citi/.eos of the Uuited States, and on the part of all their public servants. And this respondeat, ftirther aasweriae said tenth article, aaya that the several 'occaaions oa which, as ia alleged lu the 42 I IMPEACHMENT».OF ANDREW JOHNSON. several specifications of said article, this respondent ad- dresaed hie fellow citizens on subjectSiof publ&c and poMtical consideration, were uot nor was any, one of them sought or planned by this respondent, butfou the contrary each of said occasions arose upon the exercise ofa iawfcul and accus tomed right ot the people of the United Statee to caU upon their public servants nnd express to them their opinions, wishes' and feelings upon matters of public aud political consideration, and to invite from aucli public aeryants au expression of their opinions, views and feelings on matters ol public and political consideration. And thia respondeat claim's and insists, before this honorable court, and before allthe people of the United Statea, that of or concerning this, his right of freedom of opinion and of freedom, ul speech, and tliis his exercise of such rights on all matters ot public and political conaideration, and iu respect of all public aei'vanta or persona whatsoever engaged in or con nected, therewith, this reapondent, as a citizen or as Presi dent of the United States, ia not aubject to queation, inqui sition, irapeachraent or inculpation, in any form or mari ner whatsoever.' And this respohdent says that neither the said tenth article nor any specification thereof nor any allegation therein . contained touches or relates to any ofiicial axit or doing of this respondent in the office of President of the Uuited Statea, or in the discharge of any of its cOn- ¦titutional or legal dutiea or reaponsihilities, but that the aaid article and the apecifications and allegations thereof wholly and in every part thereof question only the discretion or propriety of freedora of opinion or freedom of speech, as exercised by this respondent aa a citizen of the Uuited States iu hia personal right and Capacity, and without allegation or iraputation againat this respondent of the violation of any law of the United Statea, touching or relating to the freedora of speech or ita exetcise by the citizena of the United States, or bv this respondent as one of tho said citizena or otherwise ; and hedenies that by reason of any matters in tho aaid article- or its specifications aUeged, Jic haa aaid or done anything indecent or unbecoraing in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, or that he haa brought the high oflice of the Freaident of the United Statea into contempt, ridicule or disgrace, or that he haa committed or has been guifty of a high misdemeanor in office. i Answer to Article 11. And in answer to the eleventh article, this respondent deiiiea that on the 18th day of August, in the year >186tj, at the city of Washington,- in the District of Columbia, he didi by public speech. or otherwise, declare or alfirrii in Bpbstance or at all, that the Thirty-ninth Congress of tho United Statea was not a Congress of the Umted States, authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same, or that he did then and there declare or affii-m that tho said Thirty-niuth Congi-eaa waa a Co'n- greas of only part of the Statea, in any aenae or meaning, ' other than that eleven States of the ' Union were de nied repreaentation therein J or that he made any or either of the declarations or alnrmations ou' thia behalf in the aaid article, alleged aa denying,' or intending to deny that the legialition of said Thirty-niuth Congreas was not valid or obligatory upou this reapondent, except 80 far aa this respondent eaw ht to approve the aarae ; and aa .to the allegation in said article that he did thereby in tend,; or raade to bo understood that the said Congreas had not power to propoae amendments to the Constitution, this respondent says that in said addreas no said nothing in reference to the aubject of araondraenta of the Con stitution, nor was the question of the competency of the BMid Congress to prdpoae such amendmenta with out the participation of said States in aAy way mentioHed or considered or referred ¦ tb by this respondent, nor in what he did say had he any iutent re garding the aame, and he denies the allogation&e made to the contrary thereof; but this respondent iti further answer, to, and in' respect of the said allegations of the said eleventh artible herein before traversed and denied, claims amiinsists upou hia personal and official right of freedom of opinion and freedom of apeech, and his duty in his poli- ticnl relations aa President of the Uuited Statea to the peo ple of the United States, in th6 exercise Of' such ifreedom of opinion iftnd freedom of -iipeecb in I. the, same . ma.nuer, form and elfect , as he' has in t^ja behalf stated the. same, in his answer to the .said tenth article, and wich thesame effect aa if he here repeated the same. Andhe further claims and in-i sists, as iu aaid answer to said tenth-article he has clairaed aud insisted, that he is not subject to queation of impeacU- nient or inculpation in any form or manner, of or concern- ] ing such .rights ef freedom of opinion or freedom of speech, or hia said alleged exerciae thereof. And this rospondent further denies that on tho 2lBt day of February, in: thb. ycav 18fiH, or at any other time, at the citv of Washington^ i in the District of Columbia, in pureuancoof any suehidecla* ration as ia ja-that beba.'f iuthc said cloventbtarticle alleged, ' oiuuiurrti.-e. iiw did, unlawfully ftnd in disregard of the recjuirementof the Conatitution, that he ahould take caro that the laws ahould be faithfully executed, attempt to Prtjvent the executioh of an, act entitled '*a*i aot regulating tSie tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 3, 18fi7, by unaawtuUy devising or contriWng, or attempting to devise or contrive measures by which he should prevent Edwin M.; tatantdn from forthwith resuming the functions of Secretary for the Department of War; or by unlawfully deviemg or contrivmg. or attempting to devise or contrive meana to prevent the execution of an act entitled ."an act making appropriations for the eupporCof the armv for the fiscal yefir " tera.tljerein contained do not charge or allege, the comrais sion of any act whatever by this respondent. in his ofnce - of President ofthe United States ; not the (Omission by thia rospondent of any act, of oflicial obligation or duty in his office of Preaidont of the United, States, nor doea the said article nor raatters there contained name, desig nate, describe or defin'eany act or mode or form of dovice, contrivance pr meane, or of attempt at device, contrivn.nco or meansj whereby this respondent can know or. under stand what act or mode or form of attempt, device, contri vance or means, or Qf atterapt at device, jcontrivance or. raeans afe imputed to or charged against this resnondent, in his office of President of the United States, or intended so to be, or whereby this respondent can raore fully or den- nitely make answer unto said article than he hereby does. And this reapondent, in submitting to this honorable court thia, hia anawer to the articlea of impeachment ex hibited against him, respectfuUy reserves the aright to amend and add to tho same from time to timo, as onfty be* come necesaary or prpper, and when and as suchneceflBlty and propriety shall appear. ISi&ned) ANDREW JOHNSON, -¦ ^ HENRY STANBERY*' B. R. CURTIS, THOMAS A. R. NELSON, WILLIAM EVARTS, W. S. GROESBECK, / ¦ , I : , Hi Of Counsel. Mesflra. iStanbery ftnd Evarts snpedssfrely relieved Mr. Curtis in the reading;, which dcciipled tintil' about ,thj,'ce (j'cloc'lf. I ,, I , , I.i ' At the conclusion, the Chief Jdetiee put .tlieqnetion on,s?eceiviug the anawer and ordering it to be filed, ¦which was ae;reed tOi- Mr;, BOUTWELL— Mr. President, by" directibn of the' managers on the parf'pf the Hoascl of Bepi-eseuta- tives, JT have the honor to i)r,esent a copy of tlie auswer flled by Andrew Johneon," President of the United States, to the articlea of impeacbment presented by ' the House of Rep resein tatives ; and to say t^at it is the expectation of the managre^a that they will he able, at obe o'clock to-morro\^, after copsjiltatiOn with th^ House, to preseut a flt replication tp the answer. (Senaatlon in the gallerieB). Mr. EVARTS, of coonsdl—Chief Ja8t!ce:-i-Thfrconn- sel for the President think it proper, unless sorae objection show now be miido, to bring to the atteu- tiunofth? honorable court the, matter of provision ffbvthe aUowance of time stiven fpr the preparation tor the trial which shall be. aceorded to the President and hiacounsol, after the replisation of the House of Re- ;pre5entativeB to the Pr^eaideht shall be submitted to , this couVt: In the, 'appli catidii which was made onthe ISth-inst., fdr ti,me for preparation and submission of answer which bad beeu presented tu the court, wete .included in our consideration of that time that we so asked, with thfe expectation and Intention orcaitylng on with all 'due diligence, at the same time, the pre paration of the answer and the prepiaration for the trial. '*/^^® action of the court, and its determination of the tirae within which the answers should prpnerly be ' presented; has obUged us, aa taay be well nnderstood .by this .pourt, to devote our w,hole time to the prepa^ , ration i0f the ansiVer,. and we haye had no time to con sider the various questions of law and offset, and the torms for the production of the same, which rest upon ' the rosponsitojkty aud Ke within tflae duty of cbun;*d in all miHters renuiriflff jndifiial cpnaideratifen;: We, tbarefiare, if the honbrable cburt- pkaee, auljmUnow thoire^^nest that the PMsident aud his coanBsl-maiy„b9 ^ allowed the period of thirty daye afterthe mingof the replication on the part of the House of Eep'resehca- tives to the' answer- of the' Pre61,de»t for the pretxiJra^ tion for, trial, .ahd befbre it shall abtdally proceed ^ufl I; beg leave to send .to , the,. Chief Jnstice a written minate of that proposition* signed by counsel. IMPEACHMENT OP 'ANDRfeW' JOHNSON. 46 J be Chief Juatice stated the qtnestion tobe onthe ion of Mr..Bontwell, of tbe mauaitere. ' Senator. SUMNER misappTebendins theqnention, sfld:— Betore the:TOte, I wish to inonire If the honor able managers QU' the .part of the House desiie to be heard? The Chief Jnstice explained the qnestion to be on thfe motion on the part of tbe managers, which was then put and agreed to. ' The Secretary read the application of thexiOnnselfof ths President, which ' was addressed "To theSenate dl tbe United Statesv sitting as i Conn of Impeach^ ment," representingiihat after the replication' to this' answer .shall have heen iiled, it will, in tbe opihiOb%nd judgment of tbe csunael, require not less than thirty Says for preparation for the trial. Sighed by counsel for tbe President. Mr, HOWARD^Ifit'beiri ord«ri I mOye that that anDlication lie on the table until the replication of the ' Bonseof Bepresentatives has heen filed. Mr. BINGHAM— Mr. President, before tbat motion , tabes effect, if. it be 'the pleasure of tbe Senate', the muiagers are ready to consider this application. /Ehe Chief Jnstice was Stating tbe question to be dn tUe motion of Mr. Howard, when ^Mi'w'HOW AKD withdrew tbtl'DJoMon. iUr. LOOAN, of tbe managers, objecled'to the appli- ctftioB, aS' sot containing any reason to justify the'' Senate in postponing tb^ trial, not that 'thgy desir^ to force it on with unnecessary rapidity, but becaure inch reasons shonld be given 'to an application for Urae as would be adhered to ista court of law. Conn.* eelhad merely asked an opportunity to prepare tbem- ¦elyes. The* had had and would have had auring the trial an equal 'opportunity with the managers for pre paration. 'The application did hot state that any material witnesses conld not be' procured, or tbat time fop thAr' proctirepient was required, before the commencemebt oi^ the' ttial. The answer admitted the facts' of ' tbe appointments, ' &c., charged in the fi'ret artrcle."^ ' Tbey weue within the knowledge of the Pre8identii"«'ho, being charged by these articles with hi^h, orimes and misdemeanors, bis connsel, if -there «^ any reason for this application, should have' stated it. OnthetriAlof Judges Ctaase.and Feek, sind other faifals hersiahd iu otberi countries,, such 'applications veie aocompianied' with reassna for asking delayi^iach' ss necessary witnesses,, 'records.' &c.. ¦ at a distance, the' examination of de'cisions, &c., ' anlgp^re sworn to' by the respondent! to the articlea of. impBacbment. The learned connsel on tbe otber side bad, doubtless, ex- Bmined^tbe 'ahtliarities on snch trials, and knew that these thitigS' were rec^nisite on an application-' fc^r 'a' continuance of a case ih a'conrt of law,'beoa'n8e'Of the' absehc&'of a witness.' 'It was nsital to state on-afll- davit wbatit was exjiectedto prove by tbe witness, bu residence, that he conld be procared at a certain ttmei and tbat the facts couldnot be' proven by any olher witness; Iu this application none of these reqhiVMents were Cfftnplied with ; it siraply asked time to prep'aSe for the trial of this canse ; that is, timeto examine antBori-^ ties, to prepare -argumehts, and Tot naught else. Time shonld not be given in; -this nsore' tbaa in ftny dther case, unless for good cause shown, as proVidfitt by'or- der of the Senate.' Showing cause 'meant ;that neces sity shonld be shown for tbe coutinuanbe of the trial. Bereminded theU, tbat in the trial bf Judge ChaSe anapplication had l]een>^ made fbr 6'pe'irmd brtiiiid for ' four days more than proved to be necessary to'try the /'WhoI^caCise. ' - , n. < , , In ttate trial of Queen Caroline of England, in aii- SWer to oin appHcation for- time to procure ' witnesses, &c., which was granted' miafS'ly out of 'courtesy to thff ^neen, the Attorney -Qeneral protested agaiast its>hje- cdhUng' a precedent in the trial df future' canses. Hie {Mr: Logan) insisted that no more time should be given in -tbis case tba-n is absolutely necessa'py to try th* cause, since no necessity for an eaftela^n had been sWiwn Whereby the Court conld'jndge of its mate^- rikijty. Jf it were granted, there wottlcl pi-obablv be. at tim end of thM perio*'an application for twenty fr thifty davs more; for me pMpflse of ptdcarin'g" wit nesses living lh Sitka, or some ^het remote part of ' StooOitntry. * " , " Mg wd'nld Say, whether it was consi,dered proper or - ikM),' tbat no mote-time should be grsBhed'ifi the trial of the'President than in the trial of tbe'/poorest man that lives. Tbey were amenable tfl'-'the isame taws', and sflbiect to the same laws. The Mftns^fers bad ac- ' cused the FfB'sid4nt''df'lftt6irtJ»na(Hy'db3trttMlng'the' laws, and other serious offenses, which;'iftrue, showed that it W.1S dad'Sierons for 'hiin td- remain the -chief masrtstrate of this nation, and, therefore, time should ndt be given unless sufflcient reasons were ShoVirn: To the allegation that time -would be given to an ordinary criminal he' would say, thatthe managers considered the President a criminal, and had so charged, bnt the connsel had not, as required in ths case of ordinary criminals,-' shown reasons for tto delay. Mr.'Logan reiterated and enlarged upon tfie view that tbe natnre of tho crime charged was snch that delay was dangerous. -The managers were here to enter their prdtest against any extension of .time whatever,' after th« fliing df theii: replication to-morrow, at one o'clAck, at which time they vvould ask leave to state their case 1 to tbe Senate, and follow it uo with their evidence, theother side following with theirs. He' asked that the Senate, sitting as a Court of Xmpeacbm'ent, exa mine carefully whether or ndt any facts are shown to '¦ justify this application, 'and whiitber dni diligence had' been employed in procuring -Witnesses aud get ting ready for trial. They protested against such an application being made without ^yen an -affidavit w BUpportit. ' ' - ' ¦ Mr. E'VAETS denfed'that because courts otber than those called for a' special' purpose and with limited authority, have established regulations bearing upon the right of defendant in civil or'brimina-l prosecutions, having established terifls'^oi court, and well reco^ nisfed and understood ha'Mts in conduct of jndicial action, that should infln^n6e the pVd,ceeding3 of this body. ' The time had' Hot' irrivM fdj' tfib connsel for tbe accused td'cdnsider'Whttt' issues are to b* jfrepated on their side, and they telt'hd oiicaai'on to present aji ' affidavit on ma'.ters so 6omp]elely vi'itbin thefcogni^ zariceof tbe court, obedi respect. to poverty or station whatever. If on tbeipart of-the managers,: or of -tbe accused', rfrom any ca/use,.'a proper delay for tbe prodnction of a witness was re- quirdd; it.w.oill'd be the dnty df the' bonrt to titke it - into consideration and m-ovide for it. ItwouLi -be a departure from- the .general habit of all courts if; li^fter issne join'e^,:tbey were not allowed reasonftble time before tbey were called upon to proceed with the oasb. -Mr. WILSON, of the managers, said tbe Jmaaagctra had det^rn^ne'd, so far as waa in their power, this ca§e shuulia not be takpn ont of tbe-line^i'of.ttie-'P^ cedent, and wonld therefore resisfaM apniioiitlon- Ibr nnreaswiable dalay,and tbey have prejiared to meet the question, now. TH?. -first step taken 'br th^ re^ spondent'a counsel, on the '13th lust., are 'the preM- '; ^d'ents on the trial of Judge Chasei' On the retdrn day ^ot the summons, he appeared and applied for time to answer, coupling with it .a -request for time to pr^par,e for trial,' wmohi he suppdrtbd iwith a solemn affldavit thathe cdhld-ndt bS'ptieptiei -aaoner than the 6th of 44 IJ^PBAfJHMBN^: Q? ANDREW JOHNSON. ^ tt^ sncceeding March, apd therefore) asked for time tiqtil the commencement of the next sessioa ot C'oa- The application was denied, and he was required to ani^ver an the *tb; of February sncceeding, and flve days before tbe expiration iof the time declared by him td. be necessary, the case was conciaded by an acpnittal, ao complete h.i,d been the preparation. In the case ot Jpdga .Ijepk, he appeared onthe re- tnrn day, three daysafter the 'service .of summons, and. Wplied focand was gmjiteji time to answer. In this aCse, however, notwithstanding the rule of tbe,5enate> >eqnir^ngt)ie,011ng:Of the answer then, tbey were m«t ' nAth as application for fprty days. The Senate allowed ten days for the answer. In ttmt answer, hp,i£(upd the strongest argument against »^y delay of this pass, the respondent therein, had a rit;ht under the -Constitution, as nmongbis just powers ts.do.the very acts charged against him at the bar of the Senate, This in ordinary cases might not be a weighty Go'nsideration, but here the respondent was not only ^o obey tli^ la-w like all citizens, hot to exe- cnts U, being clothed with the whole execntive power of tha.natlpn. , > ^ In the opinion of the House of Representatiires he, bad not discharged.^ that dnty, as reqnired'by bis path of dffice, and for that failure and for a positive breach ofthe law, tbey arraigned him at this bar. W^ith the adinission in the answer he asked time to make good hi? declarations, bolding.in.bis .hands -this immense- i^xecntive power, no provision having -been made ^r. ill* surrender^bqlding that power fOver the.' ,nation , with which he ha^^ disturbed and is disturbing the repose of tha.Repnblie. Thev feltit their duty to nrge a speedy progress towards the trial of tbis case,, which shoula guarantee , the rightsof the people, at the same time observing tho rights that belong to tha a^cnsed^ • . . 3l>t for the^qr^eradoptediby the; Senate on t^e ISth inst., this ftppUcatioa could not have been' made, bnt. the Case;, must hare becin discussed on the thresh- hold. 'That.pijder fiadiiow,tJi?e^ec!t of thisrnle.-T;- "C^dered, 'jThat-untess otherwise ordered by the Senate, fbr cause shown^ the trial «,ttie pending impeachment shall -proceed iraihedialyafterthe replication be Hied." -He- Btt'bmitted that there wa# not suflicient cause shown in this application to. jnstify theSSna/te, in tbe exercise ofa sdnnd discretion, in gi'anblng the time asked for. That disorctidn'was not witbont the rnle ln«1f. It mnst act npan aome rnle, and put Itself within the bounds of rekaoa. and he denied that tbis waseacb ai| application aato jastify its exercise in glvmg oue aonr's delsj. It wonld Va observed; that the respondent was care- fallT'kept oat of this isotSon. - In all the casesof which he peBcribed by the managers, aad put this- respondeht-upon his speedy trial, to tha and thatpaace maybe restored to tee eonntry bp the baaliag of the braach between the two dapa&ments of the government, and that all things may agaiu move iu this laud as tbey did lh tlmes>patf:iain3ii~be£)rv tbisrnnfertnnate conflict ob- onrreo. liberafare; sii^, in the name of tha Represen tatives, wniaak! that this itppUeation, as it is now pre< Bsntad, may Uij denied.. Mr. HE!NOSBSaf[imoTed to postpone tha decision of tbe questiou. '^ - '- < ¦ Mr. STANBERT ou behalf of tha President, said:— Ou the IStkof this Month we, entered our appearance, and this -houorttbie, court made au order that -we AotildbavetiU'thd^d(thlS' day), to file au ans'wer. It.gave tbe. managers leave- to file 'their .replication weCtaont limit as to time, Imt provided' that dn the fliing of tbeir replieatioa tbe ease stionldi proceed to trial, unless reasonable, cause were, shown fbr farther d»lay. The honorable oouct, therefore, meant us to htve time to prepare for'trial. if we, «hoaid show rea sonable gronnd for the application. Kow what has h»pB«ned, Mr. Chief Jnsfice., • Wbat bas.bean stated to this hOAfliabla conrti com posed ia a great measure of merabers ,a( the bar, by membera of the bar on their professional honor^ wa have stated that since we had tbia leave bo flle the an awer enery boar, and every momept of oar time, has been ^ecopied.iu -Drepariiiglt. Not an inatabt hai been lost. Wa refused all other applications and de^ voted onrseivcs exclnsively to t^ls,'dnty day and night; and I am sorry to be obliged 'to sav that even ths daysasred toottiernses has bteliemployed iu this duty. '¦ Allow mg fhiither tosa^ to tbis honorable tourt, that not until within afew mmntes before we carae into' court this raorning, wae the answer couclnded. Cer*.' tainly it was intended on tbe 13th to give as time, not merely to prepare our anawer. bot to prepare Yor tbat still more important thing, the trial. I hope I shall- ' 'obtain credit with this honorable court, when I say that, we have been so pressed with tbe dutv of making up the isanesaud preparing tha answer, that we have ndt bad an opportunity of asking the i'resident what witnesses be shonld produce. We have bean so ptressed , that ; the commanications which we bave received from the houorable managers in reference to tbe admission of iCestimony and faclll- tias of proof, we have had to reply to by saying:— "We have not yet, gentlemen, a moment'^ time to consider' It; all that weknpw of the case is, that it cbargesi, •tr^sactioqs ;i(|t only here, bnt invCleveland, St. Lonis and otber distant poiuts,,and' the mana^^ers have aenC^ us a list of witnessaS'Who are totestifyt iu mattera of Iwhiclithey intend to make proof agaiast ns. Bdt iwe have not nad an npportqnity of knowing wbat witnesses we are to prd^ucpu We haTanotaabpoeaasd any. , ' Now mark , the advantages which all this time the ihpnorj^ble .managers have; bad over ns. As I underf , 'Stand, and it wiU not be denied, almost ever day they ' ;have been e'ngag^dj-ju the preparation of tbis ease^'i Their articles ware^^med long ago. While we were . engaged in preparing dur answer they have beeu, as I ''pn-d^rstaiid, most-indostriously engaged in preparing-i theiv witnesses. Diiy after day witnesses have been jellied before them and examined. Wa had no snch . -power and no such opportunity. Wease he?e without lany preparfUion— without having had a moment's time^ ,to consult. with our client or among oarselves, 'i > Tbe managers say that onr anxiety ia to prepare'' ourselves, wleceas they are alLprepared— eompletaly. < grepared. So far as counsel is concerned, I am -very appy td-hear tttatftbey- a». ,'1 ahduld i'bfe*very fair fr,qmisaying that 1 am leqnally preoared. I have haS ; up time to lo^k at -anything else, ezce^ this necessary .- and all-absocbing duty of pcapartng the anawer. Now. n 'if the Senate-says we ahallgo on when tbis replieatioa'.; comes in to-morirow, 'it - places me. in. * position in 1 which I never have been before in all my practioek ! v^ith a formidable array of counsel against^ me, and yet not a witness summoned, not a docameat pre pared; all unarmed and defenseleasb . ' . , , I beg this houorable conrt to. give us time. It iis cannot give ns all thetime we ask, let it give>us some ' time atleast, within'. lybich,, by, the utmost diligence, we can moke j«[bsiti preparations, we deem necessary, and without which we cannot safely go to trial. Geu-tlen. < men of tha other side complainedthatwe E^ould have been ready ou the 13th, aad read i^gffbist'US arnletbat i itb^t ^osthe day fixe^foruot only thf appearance, bnt'i flling|ne.answer< They raad out of, th.e rule Chat old i formala. wh\ch has comedown from five hnudrect i years bnckv lu reference to appearing and aaswariBa..i It is the same ,langaage adopted in . thdse early times' > when the defendant was called upoosaud answered by . parole ; but then onr ancastora would not answac on' the day of appearance, bat always asked; and had time for answer. .--_, ,,.;,.., ,i ¦- Mr. BINGHAM, one ofthe managers, ro.se to reply. ., The , Chief Jnstice intimatedf. -that when coansel make emy motion to the oourt, the connsel wbo make the motion h^ve invariably the right to cldse the arga- ment. ,. . / Mr. BINOHAM saidt with all ,diie respect to the rqlingof the presiding officer ofthe Senate, I beg leave to remind the !^enata. that from time immemo rial ia proceedings of this kind, the right of the Cora mons in England, and ofthe representatives ofthe people iu tho United States to dose all debates, has navet been called iu question. On the contrary, la Melbourne's ease, Lord Erskine, who presided, said , When tbe question was presanted, that he owed it to the Commons to protest against the immemorial . Lord Brskiue^B decision has never been questioned, and I believe it . haa been the continued rnle la Bng- land for aboat flve bondred ypara. Id the first case IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHlWCrN. 4&> frer tried in the Senate of the tTndet States under the Cdnstitntibn, the case of Blount, although the ac cused had interpooed a plea to the jnrisd iction s, the argunicnt was closed by the manager on the part of ihe House. 1 had risen for the pnrpose of mnkinsr some response to tbe remarks last made ; but as ,the presiding oflicer has Interposed the objection to the Senate, I do not deem it proper for me to proceed fnrther antll the Seuate shall have passed on the Question. Senator HOW AHD said he- rose to move to lay the motion of the counsel- on the table. Mr. BOUTWELL, one of the managers, remarlced that it seemed totbe managers, and to himself, espe- tially, a matter of so mnch importance as to whether the managers should have the closins: argument, that he wished, and they wished, that to be decided now. Senator HOWAED said that It^ waa not his intention to ahuc off debate or discussion, eitber on the part ofthe manasrers or,.on the part of counsel for the accused, and if there was auy desire on the part of either to pro ceed wtlrh the discussion he wonld WLthdraMfbls mo lo lay on the table. Mr, BINGHAM then sai^^I] deeply rear^t^Mr. Ere^ eideut, that the counsel for the accnped have 'made asy question ber^i^or-anj y^Vuni^tiou,4f yon please, th^ta^queUion is made or Intended to be made, by thQ. managers touching the entite sincerity with which they atk this time. J am sure thiit nothing was fur ther from our pnrpose than that. The gentleman who laat. took his seat (Mr. Stanbery) spoke of baring pfe- sented this application on their honor. No man ques tions their honor— no man who knows them will que^- ticm their honflr— but we muyt be pardoned for sayinEf thi^t it is altogether unusual, onqnestidne ot.thla kind, to allow continuancoto be obtained' on artneife point of bonor. , Theruleof tlie Senate whiclt was adopted on the I3tlj Inst., Is the ordinary rule in courts of law, namely, that the trial Hfaall proceed nnless ibe canse .^own further timo shall be allowed. Isubmit that a question of this magni tude has never been decided on the mqre preBentatjon of. • counsel in this coimtrv or any other country. The point of continuance arising on a guestion of, thia sort, I,.venture toeay; hais never beeh decided attiruiatively, at lenbtiin favor ofsuch a propoaition, on the raere statement of coun- ceL If Andrew Johnson will say that there are witneeecs not within 'ttte processor this cou^t, but whose attendance hecan hope to procure if time be allowed , him ; and if he will make alfidavit before thia tribune tliat they are ma terial, and will set forth in hia aiEhdavit what he expects to prove by them. I cbncede that on. auch a showing there wouU. be aomething. on which the Senate might probably actTbut instead bf that he throws himself back on his coiineel, and has tUem to make their etatenieut here that It will require thirty days of time in which to prepare tor trial. He pent thoae gentlemen at the bar of thia tribunal on the 13th inst., to notify the Senate, on their honor, that it w-'ould require forty days to prepare an answer, and now he senda them bapK, upon their hbnora, to notify the Senate thatit will requu'c thirty dav,3 to prepare for trial. I take it, sir. that the couneel for the accused have quite a? much time for nreparsrion', if this trial shall proceed to morrow, aa had jtini^ managers on the piirt of (luS'liouae^ who are charged with duties by the people which they are not permirtecTta lay aside from day to dayj in the other end of .the Capitol. I thinki on the ehowing made here this day by the President of the United Statea, unleas very good cause is shown^ and 'that, too, under the obligation of Eisown oath atthe bar of. tbe Senate^, that nat another hobT^scontinuanceshciuld be allowed him, after the caae shall have been put at,i^sue. We aeked leiave to suggest to tbe Senate that we hoped on to-moiTow, b:r'leave of the people's repreaentalivw, to pnt -this case atissue by filing a r^ication. That ia all tbe dclav we dt'sire. ^ney have had the opportunity for process ever since the 13Qh inst.. and they ar*} guilty of gross neglect— I do not Bpmk of the coimsel; ibnt ofthe accused— in ijot haying the winaeesea spbpcBnmed ; ,aud yetr not a nngle sumuiona has beeh required by bim, under the rule and order of this tribhnal. to biing to the bai:, a single witness on his behalf. He has mhown a total neglect ; ' and yet he cornea here with a Confeasion and avoidance in the matters piesentcd by tbe House of RepreaenAtivea, and tella the Senate, and tells the country that bo'^dotifis their power, thus trifling with the great power which the people, for various pur pose^, have rcponed in rtpe, hands ot their Representatives and&nators in Congress Msemblied. What is this powbr of impeachment if tbe President of the United States, holding the whole eSecutjve power of the nation, is permitted, when arraigned at the bar of tho Senate, in the name of all the people, and charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, in that he haa violated hid.oath, in that he bas violated the Constitution of tho country, in thai; ho has violaited tho peoples' Ixwa, and ati tefnptfid by- his violation to lay hAuds upon the peoples* treasury? What, I eay. is this great defonaive power worth if the President, oa a mere statement of couupcI, be permitted to postpone for further inquiry for thirty days, until he prepare to do what? , , , , , . , ^. Untfliic prepare W raako good bis elaborate itatemont set forth in uis answer tnat tha Conatitution is but a ca binet ll»bls hande.and- tbafeho'dcfitee our power to restrain ' > hini ' When I heard this discunsiou going ori, I thonght of the weighty words of that grout man whose luraihouain tellectshed lustre on the jiiriBprndence of his country and thogreat^tateof New York for moro than one-third ofa century, when bq wrote it down in his ¦ counnentaries onthe laws— comm entrtries that will Uveas longas our language Uyep— that if the President of the United States will 'not be restrained from abusing the .trust comraitted to him by the people, either by tho obligations of hi? oath orby thewdttonroRiniremenrt of .the CouRtitu-- tion. that he shall take care tliat the laws be faithfully executedi or by the other provision that hie term of office is limited to the abort tenure of fouryearB;nor yet bythe dpoent reapect to tho public opinion of the country, there remains the tremendous power lodged by th(j people under the Constitution in the bandsrof their xcpreeentatives to arrest him by impeachment in the abusffof the great trust committed t6 hia nandd, ' ' ' Faithful tp the duties imposed upon us by oiir oaths aa the re prose ntati ves of the people, we have intei-poaed that remedy- by arresting the man. He comen to-day to ai#s\ver ua,andheaays to us-, "I defy your impeachment; by tbe "ExecutiFO power reposed' in me by tbe Constitution, I claim, in the presence of tho Senate' and in the {tro'aenco of the c6nntry, the right, without chal- ongc, let or hindrance, to suspend every E:cecu- tivo officer of this govemment, at my pleasure." I venture to say, before the enlightened b.ir of public opinitjn in America, tbat by thoae motivea inoorporated,- in bis answer the President Is^ as* guilty of malfeasance and miademeanor in office, aa ever man was guilty of mal feasance and ml-demcanor iu office aiuce the nations began to bc On earth. What, that he witL'auspend all the : executive officera of the governmont at hiapleaaure, not by , force of theTehure of Office act. to which he makes refep-j ence, and whioh ho aays is void and of no effect, hutby forceof the Constitution of the Uuited States; that, too, while the Senate is in aoBsion. What does be mean by itr' Let ihe Senate answer when it comes to vote on thia I proposition for the extension of time. Does he mean hy it that he will vacate the offi cea and not fill them? Does' he mean by that, your money appi-opriated for carrying 'on I aud administering the government shall romaia locked up in thii vaults of the Treasury, and shall, not be applied, or does he raean by it that he will repeal what he has ah-eady done in. the presence of the Senate .Jind. in yiolation ot tbe Constitution aud the law?, and ' will tefhiove without the consent of the Senate, and will appoint while the Senate ia in session, without ita con- Sent and advice, just aUch persons as will answer his oWn purpose? Is that what he means.by it? If it is, it is a ¦.ivery cany method of repealing the Constitution of the United States. I admit that'^itf&aitime honored rule ot liiw, tho gathered wisdom of a thouaand ¦ years, that the accused has the righttda, speedy and impartial trial. ' I claim that the people also have a right to a speedy and impartial trial, and that the queation pending bore touches in aome sort the rights of the people. In their name we deinand here a speedy and impaa-tial trial. If the Presi dent ia not guilty, we ask in behalf ofthe country that he shall be declared innocent of the offenses of which: he stands charged. If it be the judgment ofthe Senate that he has laid violent hands on the Conatitution of the couu try, and rent it to tatters in the preeence of Ita custodians, ¦ the sooner that judgment ia .pronounced, the. better, la. this view of the caae the public intere&ts deraand that the triat shall proceed until, by the solemn ©ath of the ac cused, made at the bar, it ahallbe made to appear tbat he ciniiot proceed on account or tfie abaeuco of witneasea material to him, and until be states wbat he expects to p*pve by thenj,fT, .. , . . , ._..__ I venture Jo sasytbat^be 'can m^ke no , sbawing of thafi sort which weare not ready to meet, by "saying that we will admit that hia witnesses will a wear to his statements, and let him have the benefit of that. Nearly all the teatl- nionr involved in the issue is dpcumenti^. Much vf it is official. It will occur to- the Senate that as thia trial progrcsaes, they will bare as much time^or preparation byf tbe time that the case closeS|On tho pajTt of thegovilbmeut ^ a^ we have had. We make no boast of apy superior pre paration of tbia matter. We desire slmnly to discharge our dutyaBbeatwecah. We assume no'siiperioiity over counsel, as was intimated by the gentleman (Mr. Stan bery). We'detire shnply tb diachacge our, duty here; to- diachargcit promptly* to discharge it faithfully. ' We appeal to the Senate to grant us the opportunity of doing 60, that justice may be done between the people of the United States and the Preaidont of the'United btaees; that the Consititutiou which be had violated may be vindi-' cat^d, and that the wrong he hae committed againat an outriiged and betrayed people may be speedily redfeesedj Mr. BUTLEK, another of tbe managora, said he would, like to call the attention pf the Senate to the position in which the managers would be placed if tho question of thne were net settled now.. If a replication were made at all, be thought he could pay for bia aeaOdiatea that it would 'be simply a gaining cf isaue to tbo anauer, and therefore, and for that purpoae, it mightbe considered already tied. The managers would have to be ready at all hazarda by to morrow to go on with the case, with tlie Uncertainty of " ihaving the court, or rather, "he begged pardon," theSe nate poBtponing the trial for thirty days. Ue therefore agreed with the counsel for the defense^ that it waa butter for all that the questipn should be aetr tied'Uow. ijo knew he spoke for the managers and for thei House of Rcprcaentatives when He urged that the queation shotdd be icttled now. Our bubpcenas, said he, are "Out. Our witnesses hare been cidled«^ We want to 46 IMPBAOMM.EMT OF ANDREW JOHN^SOJS". S?J^- ^}^^ *o*"^S tbem here. , We Jwve«ot to come here Bure,.and we willbehere. (Laughter, whi^ was .promptly Buppreaaed by the^hair.) That ia .ail we. ask. l^ieretore 1 trust that the Senate will fix, at this time, the bour and the day that thiP trial shall certainly proceed. Pwf±w ^S^*??^SON offered the Uowing:- iJraerea, ihatthe application-of, counsel for the Preai- aeut to be aUowed thirty daya to.prepare for the trial of impeachment, be i)Q8tponed -imtil after the reelication is The question was taken by yeaa and nays, and reaulted as follows :— . , , . , '^ ,: YbAs— Measrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cattell, Cole, Dixon, iJopIittlel Edmunda, Fesaeuden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, t?nrae3, Henderson, Hendricks. Johnson, McCreery, Mor- rUHMe.), Norton, . Patterson (Tenn.), , Eobb, Saulsbui.Y, Bberman, Sprague, -TrumbuU, Van winkle and Vickers Nays— Messrs. Bayard, Cameron, , Chandler, Conkline, ConneBfl,Corbett, Cragin, Davis,. iDfakej Ferry, Harlan,' Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill ¦{V'i:), Morton, Nye, Pat- teraon ^. H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewari, SLimner, ¦Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Williams, Wilson and.Yatea^Sl-, Senator HOWARD moved that the motion >of tbe coun sel for the accused be laid on the table. Senator DRAKE made the queationof order.that it was not-in order to move to lay;on the .taible af. proposition of the ^ouncel for the accused^-or ofthe manager^.' The Chief Jnetice sustained the point of order, and the motion wap received. ¦. > . , The. question recurring on the application of icouiiBel for me-Presidenttbat tbey.be aUowed thirtyidays to prepare ibrithe tpial, ., ^ i , The.gUeStaon was takenby yeas and nayB,and resulted— yeas, IX J nays; 4ltiaB follows :^,' L , -. ,.<¦ • Yeas— Mesars. Bayard, Buckalew, Davia, DixonJDoolit- tle, Hendricks, Johnson, Mc^eery, Patterson* of ¦Tennea- see, Saulsbury and VSokofa. 'il, ;. , ,• i. - , (, : .j ^Na-Ts.— Meears. Anthony^ - Cameron, Cattell, Ohandleri: .-1.1; n ^,^_.. ....L ..__ _,jj^^ Drake, Edmiinda, ghuyaen. Grimes. Hai;- miiiv *iciiuoiouij,^ uLvwaiAj., xiuwu, Morgan, Morrill (Me/)*; Morrill (Vt.), MbrtoDi Nye, Pattersou (N. H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, - Koas, Sherman, {Spraane, Stewart, Suraner, Thayer, TrhmbuU, Upson, Van Winkle, WiUey, Williams,- Wilson and. Yates. ¦ '. •< ¦>'' nn-ui. ¦ ^1, ;., , >., ¦ The application was rejected. oi " Mr. E V ARTS then submitted the foUowing :— Counsel for the President now move that there be .al lowed foP preparation to the President of the UnitedStatoa for the trial, after the replication shall be filed aud before tbe tiial shall be required to proceed, auch reasonable time as shall be now fixed bythB SeUate. ,1 : . Senator JOHNSON inquired whether it Waa in order to amend that motion. . • ' j , The Chief Justice informed /him, that it waa in order to submit an independent proposition, f, Mr. JOHNSO.N— I move, then, that ten daya he aUowed after the filing ofthe replieation. Mr: SHERMAN, then moved that the SenatQ, sitting as a 4;ourt of 'impeachment, adjourn. tiU to,-mQrrpw at one o'clock. r . , The:motion was agreedto., The Chief Justice thereupon (Vacated the. /Chair,' which was resumed by the presiding ofS^ei' ef the Senate»iand tbe Senate, ac4'4&P. M, adjourned. PROCEEDINGS OF TUESDAY. MARCH 24. *• The Replieation of the Manasers. D^ngjthe morning session of tbe Senate, the Clerk of the HWse appeared and announced that the Honse had .adopted a replication to the ^06 wer ofthe Presi dent, of the. 'United States, to the artii^lee of impeach- menU'- . . , , One o'clock h&ving arrived, the Presidentjjro -tem, vacated the chiir for the Chief Justice, who entered and 'tobk his seat, ordering proclamation, which was toade accordingly by the Serpea|nt-atr Arms. In the meantime the, counsel for the President, MesBT8.;Stanbery, Curtis,. Evarts, Nelson and Groea- beck, entered and took their seats. : . ,' At five minutes past one o'tilock the mana'sers were aniiouuced'and took :tlieir s^ats, with Ehe exception of Mr. Stevens. ' , ' The Honse was flmnoanced imtnediatctly, and thp members disposed themselves, outside ^he bar. The miuutes of the session of yesterday were read by the Secretary. Tbe Secretary read fehe anpouncctnent of the adop tion of the replication by tbe Hoiise^ Mr. BOUTWELL, one of tbe managers, then rose and said :-^ Mi'. Pre6i(3ent;— I am charged' by"tho managers with the duty of presenting tno replication offered by 4he -House;/ Heread.ibSireplicatiou, pa follows:— .,, I^eplJcation. '¦ Replication 'Of tbe House of ^Icpresentatives of the Unitefl States to the anawer of Andrew Johneou, Propident of ^ the United States,. .to ihc articles of impcachmput e;;^ hibited againat bim by the House of Rep reaen tati veil.. The House of Riipi-esbntiitivos ofthe United States hftVo con-'iderpd the sevdrtil Ji'nawers Of Andrew Johnson, Prftsft^ dent of the United Stjates, to the several articles , 01 imV peachment against him by them exhibited iu the name of- themselives and.of-all the P?pple of ^ho United Statea, and , 'reserving to themselves all the advantage of exception tb, the, in^jilKeiency of tlje angv^er to each ajid all of'th|! ' aeverardrtidlCT^ ImpeachraCTt eixhibited againat the said Andrew Johnaon, President of the United Stated, do donyf;, each and evary averment iu said several answers, or eitboj ,01 them, which denies or traverses the acts, intents, crjm^ •or miade.meanorR charged againat the said Andrew Johur aon in said articlda of impeachihent; tir either of thom," and for replicatiofa td the sftid answer' do Bay that the'saia.. ; Andrew Johnson, 'PreaideM. of the United States, ia guilbv , of the high .criiUjes and misdemeanors, mentioned in aaid articlea, and that/ the HOuse of JRepreaehtatiVes ' are ready to prove the sanie. ' -"' ... • , ,j , At tbe'conclhsion of the reading, 'Senator JOHI^ SON said:— Mr. Chief Justice, I move that' an antbcni '' tieated copy be presfented to the counsel for the Pre3i|f • deut. .•,->¦'': r ,/ The motion was hgreed to. ' Time for F^p^afatlon Th^i Chief ilastice— Last eyenine a motion wH pending on the part of the counsel ,for the President : tifiat sijch time sbould be allowed for tbf ir preparatiQiJ ,', as the^Senate should please tg determine'; theredpoq;' f the Senator, from Maryland (Mr;., Johnspn) pregfentet^.^ an .order which will Uo rej^d by t)ie, Secretary. . ,/' ' ""', 'The Secretary, read the order providing^ tbftf' teji days time be allowed. ¦ ¦ ,. ¦ * , Mr. SUMJSjpK--Mr. President, r send tp the Ch^tff' , '^n amendment;, td come imniediately 'after the wpc4 "ovdered," being in the.nijtnre ofa mbstitnte, ' The Secretary read the amendment, as follows :-r .That now tbat replication haa beeu filed, the Seuaf^ adhering to< its rnle already adopted, shall proceed wlt^ the trial from day to day, Sutidays exceptedr unlesB otherwise ordered or reasons shown. Mr. EDMUNDS— I move that the Senate retire tii confiider'tbat order. > i, (.,,, r,,'. ,, Senator SUMNER, and other's— No, no. The yens and nays wei'e' demanded and ordered, r^ .' Boltipg tis fqllows:— , ,'-', ' '' L Ypis— Messi'B. Authoiy^ 'BaVard, BucTkalcw, Cofbet^' ' Davis, Dixon, DooUttlc, Edmundp, Fessenden. Fowler, FrA- Sprague, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey aud WiUiaras——. NaY6— Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandlfer; Coi6, Conk> ling, Connosa, Cragin. Drake, Foj-ry,,' Hanlan, HoTs'ardL Morgan; Nye, Pom3ro3% Hamsey, Ross, Sherman, StOwa^tl Sumner, Tbaye^, Ti^on, Trunibull and Wilson— 93. So. the Senate re t;i!'ed/for' co'n^deration ap 1*25. Consultation* After the Senators had retired, Mr. Stevens was dffr covered 'sitting to the left; ^nd rear of the Pre^tficutl desk, having entered uuhotibeii durii^g tile proceed*- ingSc i-ii^ the meantime . thei galleries, hitUevtovery quiet, uippled with fans and chiti-ohat, in the 9flsui> ^b6e that the cni^tain was down, while on the dod^ tha seats , sapred to Senators lyere inva/ded' by knots ^ members audother's'in cbdversapoh;'- ^" ¦ The Private Consultation. When the Senatebad'retiredfor con^alt^tioa^^lffi^ ' JOHNSON modified the reaolntion he hbd preyiiiufllii ? submitted Iti the Chamber^' by providing that the triU', , bf the President shall commence on Thursday, April % Mr. WJLtlAMS moyed that the further consider^ tiou of the respondent's Applipation for time be'poSv poned'uubll thje managers have opened their case ^p4 isubmitted their evidence. . , This WdS disagreed to by a vote of 42 nays to 9 yeojM, as follows:— ' . . ¦• Yea^.— Messrs. Anthony, Chandler,'Dix6n, Grlmbs, 'HfO Iqb, liowai'd, Morgan, Patterson (Tenn.) and WiUiajua., NjAYS.— Meaarsr Bayard, Buckalow* Cameron, CattoIK C©le,-C!Wikiing, Conuoae, CrM,rau,,, Davia, Dbqlittle, DMka Edmunds, Ferry, Fesaonden, Fowler, Prelin^buyson, Heffl det'aon, Hendricks, Hoive, Johnson, McCreery, Moirlft iil''.), Morrill (Vt.), Morton,' Norton, Nye. Pattorsoh, {!» ,, H.) ' Pemproyj JRarasey, Roas, Saulsbury, "ShoriHaii , Spr kgue, Stewart, Sumner, Tbaycr. TiptoiL TraoibliU A an- Winkle,. Vickers, Willey and ^Wilson; ^ , ' Abaent or not voting;^Mefa;ara. Corbett, Wade knd, Yatea» , Mu. SUMNER- hald, ''Oiffwiied.' the following ain^ii' m^uti, which 1 "¦ KubsequciUly Withdrew: — < ', i No w,,tbaj replication ht»B Ts^en ^filed.-ttie Senate, adhoT? IMPEAGHMEWT GP- ANDREW JOHIfSON. 4T ing to ita rule, already 'adopted, will proceed with theltnal from dsiy to da.v, SiTndaye excepted, ulileBS' otherwise or. d^ed, or reafJon showti. ' . , Mr.' CONKLING moved, an araendment to Mr. JohnSOB's resolution, by.strifeing ont Thnrsday, April 8, and inserting Monday, March 30, as the time when the trial shall commence. ¦ : ^his was agreed to. Teas, 28; nays, 24. as follows:— Yeab.— McBarB. Cameron, Oattell;.(Jha6dlor', , Cole, Conk ling, ConuesB, Cragin, Drake. Ferry, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Mo.), MorriU (Vt.), MOi'ton, Nye; Patterson (N. H.), Porocroy, EainBcy, Eopb. Stewart; Siim- BM', Thayer, Tiptog, Willey, Williiima,Wil8on-28. Nays.— MeEsra. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew. Corbett, Davie. Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Kijsfendon, Foivlor,^ Frelinchuvaen^ G.rim'CB, Henderson, .Hendricks, Johnson/ McCrearyi Norton, Patterson (Tenn.), Saulsbury, Shei<- man, Sprague, Trumbulli Van yVmWS and Vickera— 24. Abaent or not voting. ^MSsiira. Wade and Yates. •Other raodiilcacions were made to the giiginal reso- Idtion, when Itwas adopted as read in-open Senaie. Return of tho Senate. At3'25F. M. the Senate reappeared, baring been ont exactly two hours. Order haying been restored, the Chief Justice said:- „ , ¦ , I am dirccteato inform the connsel that the. Sen«,t« has agreed to an order, in response to ,, their applica tion, which will now be read:— - , .. ¦ "Ordered— That the Senate will commencej the trial of the Preeident, upon the articlea of inipeachmezit exhibited against him, on Munday^ the SOth day of March inat., and proceed thereiji with all despatch under the rulea of the. Senate sitting lipou the trial of an impeachment.'* . . ¦'After a'momentary pause the Chief Justice aslEed : — ' Have; the counsel for -the Fresideut anything to pro pose? ! ' ' ¦' ' , ' ' The conn;!ei bowed In acqniespence to tbe decision. Mr. BUTLBK, of the mauagers— Jf the Chair will allow me, I will give notice to the witneJses'to appear here on Monday, the 3(>ch lust., at 12>^ o'elock. . The CdnrC AdjouroB. On motion of Senator WIL30N, the, Conrt was then adjourDed till the date' named, at half-past twelve o'cldck, and the Chief Justice yacated the Chair, which was immediately resumed by the President pyo tem.. Mr. Wade, nho called the Senate to order. PROCEEDINaS OF MONDAY, MARCH 30. WABpiNGTow, Kareb 30.— At 12*30 the President pro tem of tbe Senate vacated, ttit Cbau|, which was ftnraedifttely t^hen by tbe Chief Jnstice. The Sergean^at-Arma made a proclamation com manding silence. ' The Preaide;nt*^',^ojiriB6l ientered andtook their seats as before, at 12*45, and the Sergeant-at-Arins an- noUiiced the mif^ag^rs on the "part ef the House of Repreeentatlves, wlxo.^took tbeir places, with the ex ception of Mr;'l^venii, whO' Entered spon afterward, abd took a seat slightly apart from the managers' table. '¦ -''>¦¦ The Honse of "Repreaeutatives was then announced, and the member^ appeared' headed by Mr. Wash burne, bf lUinoU, on the arm. of the Clerk ofthe House, and were seated. 'The minntes df the last day of the tHal were read, and Mr^ Butler commenced his opening at a quiarter bi^fore one p'clbek. » , , Oveainse Anrament at Mr, Butler. Mr. President and Grentlemen of ' the Senate:— ffhe' eherous duty has fallen to my fortune' to! present to you,' imperfectiy as I mUet, the several pi^opoaitions of fact and- of lawhpon which the House of Kepreseittatives wiU en- ma^of to sustain- tho cause of thfe people against thei Presi-. dent of the United States, now pending at your bar. ; . The high station of tbe accused, the"noTelty of the pro- c^d^g, th'e ei-avity of the business, the importance of the cfeeBtions to be presented to your< adjudication, tho possi ble momentous result of the issues, each aud^aU must plead for me todaiHa your' attention for 'aS longa time as your patience' mary endure. - ' ¦-' ' ¦' ' ^ '""¦ Npwt fpr the first tlime iu the history of the world, has a nation brought before itfi highest tribunal "its Clncf'Exocd-'' ' tivo MagietratG fur, trial und poMble dei^osition', from otnce, upon chai-ges of maladmiuiatratidn of the lowers and duties of that oflicQ. In other tiraps, and in other lauds, it has been found that dcspotisiris' could only bo torapere^dby assassination, and nationa livfffg nndeV. con-. Btituiti,ona; gQve;'nmenta oven, have found no iViode by which to nd themselves of a tyrannical, imbbcile, or faith- lesBr ruler, save by overturning the very foiindatidn aud frame work of tbegovornmcutiteelf. And,' but recently, in onp of the moet civilized arid powerful govetumcnts of the world, from which our own, institutiOuR h'aVe becn^ largely modeled, we have seen a nation submit for'ycars* to the rule of an insane king, because its conatitutioti con tained no method for his removal. ' " ¦ . ' . , Our fathers, more wisely, 'founding our govei'nment, havo provided for such and all similar oxigencjus a conKor- yative, effectual, and practical reuicdv- p3''the conotitu- tional provision that .the "Pseaident. Vice Pro/*iaent, and all civil otlicerB of the United States shall bc rerauved from oflice on inipeacbment for and conviction of treason, bri bery, or other high crimes and niipdeUieanorfl," The Con stitution leaves nothing to implication, either as to the persons upon whom, or the body by whom, or the tribunal pefore which, or the offenses for wiiich, or the raaniier in which thin bish^ power should bo eiercised; each and all aro provided for by express words of , inl^pcf ative com mand. , ¦ ' The Pouse of Kepresentatives rtiall solely impeach ; the SquatC'iOrily phaU try ; and in case of conviction the judg ment snaU alqne be removal from Ofiice and disqualification for, office, t^e or both. The.^e piandatory proviBions be came necespary to adapt a TyeU- known propedjirc of the ^ mother country to tho instituliohs of the tnciu infant re- ¦ public. But a sjnglo incident only of thp business was left toconstructionnaud,that concerns the offenses ojC'tucapa- cities which are the. groundwork of impeachment. This w»a wisely done, because huraan foresight is inadequate, and human inteUigence fails in the tat^ of anticipating and providing for, bv positive enactment, all the inlinlte gra dations of, a human wrong and sin, by which the liberties of a people and the safety of a nation may|bo endangered from ,^e'iinh?GiJily, corruptipn and, unhallowed ambition of its rulers. ¦,,.,-' , , It ma3' not be uninstructive to obaerye thM tbe framers o$the tJonati tution, while engaged in their glorious and, I trust, Gver-onduring work, had their attention aroused" and their minda quickened most signally updn this very topic. In the previous year only Mr. Burke, from hia place in the HoijBo ipf Gommona, in England, had preferred charges for impeachment against Warren Hastings^ and three daya before our convention sat he was irapeached atthe bar of " the 5,01.186 of Lords for misbehavior m office' as the ruler of a people whpse numbers were counted by millions. Tbo ^ mails -were then bringing across, tho Atlantic,, week by , week, the eloquent accusatione of Burke, the gorgebua and burning denunciations of Sheridan, in behalf of the op pressed people of India, against one who had wielded over them, more th§,u regal power., May. it not haVe been that the trial then ijn progress was the aetermining cause why, the framers of the Conatitution left tho defloription of of- fonaes, because Of which the cpnduct of an o'racer might be inquired of, to he defined by the laws' and usages of Parliament as found in tho precedents of the mother coun try, with which our fathers were alsfamili'ar as w'o are with our;)wn? . , . , , ' In the light, therefore, of these, precedpnta, the question , a^ise^ Wnat are impeacTiable offe/fi^es uuaer the provi sions of our ConstitLition.? J, t/ I To analize, to compare, to reconcile, these precedents, is a work rather fbr the closet than the forum. In brder, thero foro, to spare your attention, I have preferred to state the result to which I have arrived, and that you may see the ' .authorities aud discusBiohs, both in this country and in- ¦Englflnd, from which we deduce bur propositions, so tar as applicable to this case, I pray leave ' to lay before yo'u, at ¦ the close of my argument,, a brief of all the precederits and ;authorities upon this subject, iu both countries, for wliich I am indebted to the eihaustive and learned labors of my filieud, the honorable Williara Lawrence, of Ohip,, mem ber of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Represen- tativei, iu which I fully concur and which 1 adopt. , , We define, therefore, an impeachable high crjmO or ihla^ demeanor to be one in its tiature or conseQuence^ ffub- , sersive of some fundamental or essential principle of , oQverTvment, or Ivighly prejudicial to theipuolic inlerest, 'and this mai/. consist of a violation of tlie Cons^itutvpTh of law, of an oMcicU oath, or of duty, by dn a^t mrr^ .mitted or (ymiUed, or, without violating a positive law^ by the abuse of discretiong.ry powers frorh .im,proxi&r motives, or for any improper purpose. ^..'T..'./ Tbe first criticism which will atrike the mind on a, cur sory examination of this definition is, that some ofthe enu merated nets are not within the com mon -law, defi nation of ! crimes. Itis but common learning that iu the English pre cedents the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" are uni versally used; but any malversation in office, higblf projudicial to the pubiic interest, or eubvereive of , aonia fundamental principle of government by which the safety of apeoplomay be in danger, is a high criqie against the nation, as the term is used in parliamentary latv. ri-lallam, in bis. Constitutional Historyof England, cer tainly deduceathis doctrine fcom thp: precedenta, and espe- , cially Lord Danby, case 11; State -Tj3ialB,)^Q0, of which ho says:— i-' ¦ ¦!.!.¦ .¦ '..¦.,- ¦' ¦¦ i ,,.y The Commons, m Impeaching Lord Danby, went a great wjiy towards leptiLblialimg the principle i.that jio minifaror can ahelter himself behiadL-the throne by pleading obctLi- 49 IMPEACHTiTENT OF ANJ)REW JOHNSOllf. ence to the orders of hia soverdgn, H6 is' iitiBwei*abl^ fbr thejustice, the honesty, the utility of alt ¦ Tiieo^ures &md^ nadnff from the Crown, as well as for their legality; and thus the^executivo administration is; or ought to be. sub ordinate m aU great matters qf policy to the auuerinten- dence and virtual control of the two houses of Parliament. Mr. Christian, in hia notps'tdtfieCommentaries of 'Black stone, explama the CQlloea'tiOn and use ofthe words "high crimes and miedemeanbra" by saying:— When tbe words, "Jtiigh, crimbs and mipdoiheanors" are nscd in prosecutions by impeachment, -the words "high crimes" have no definite signification; but are used merely to give greater ablemjaity to the charge. Alike mterpre,tation must have been given by the framers of the Conatitution, becauae a like definition to oujB. was in_the miudjof Mr. Madison, to whom more than to any other' we are indebted for the phraseology ofour Constitution, for, in the first CongresB, when diseussina thp powerto remove an officer by the President, which is one of the very riiaterial questions before theSenate at this moment,, hiCuses the following words :— ' Th6 danger cojrtj^ts mainly in this :— That the P=re'Bident can displace .frpm office a man whose merita require he Fhould be continriQd'in it. In the first place, he will be luipeaohable hy the House for such att act bf ifialadminig- trMion, for I contend that the' wanton removal of merito- riottB oflicera would subject him to impeachment and re moval from his own high trust. Strengthening this view, we fifld that within ten years afiferwards impeachment was applied by the very men who framed the Con stit ation to the acts of public officRrs, which under no common laW definition coiild^be juatly cailed crimes ormiadenicanois, either high or low. Leav ing;, however, the cori-ectness of oUr lyropOeitiOn to be sus tamed by the authorities we ' furnish, we' are naturally brought to the consideration of the metbOd of the proced- urc, aud the nature of the proceedings in cases of impeach ment, and the character and pOwera of the tribunal by' wbich high crimes and ihi^demeanors are to be adjudged. or determined. , ,, ,' ' ; ' ; ,i ^ One of the important ' gaedtibns which meets ub at the outset is. Is thia' proceedin^'ri jtiial, as that term is nnder- Bt^bd.so far aa relatcsto the rights and duties of a coiirt and jury upon ah inoicthifernt' for di'ime? Tis'it not raftber' more in the natur« of i^n inquest of office? The Conatitution seem? to ' have determined it tobe thfe latter, because, under its provifiion^ the right to retain and hold office ia the only subject that can be finally adjudi cated; aU preliminary inquirv being carried on solely to determine that question and that alone. All in vestig ations of fact are in Bome sense trials, but not in the sense in which tbe word is used by courts. Again, as a correlative question:-^ Is thia body, now aittiug to determine the accusation of the Houae of llepresentatives against the President 'of the United States, the Senate of the United States, or a tourt? I trust, Mr. President and Senators, X may be iioVdoned for making some suggestions upon these topics, because to us'it seems these are questions not of forms, out Of 'sub stance. If this body here is a court in any manner as con tra-distinguished from the Senate, then we agree that many, if not all the analogies of the procedures of courts must obtain; that the common-law. incidents of atrial in court mtist have place: that you' may he bound in your proceedings and adjudication by tberulcsand precedentB ofthe common or statute law; that' the interest, bias or preconceived opinions or affinjiUcs to the party, of the ju'dgcs, maybe open to inquiry^ ahd even tWo rules of order and precedents iu courts should h.sve eff'ect ; that the managers of the House of Representatives must confonn to those rules as they'WoUld be applicable to public or private proaecutora ot crime ih courts, and that the ac cused may claim the benefit ofthe I'ule in criminal casob, tbat he inay only be convicted when the evidence makes the fact clear beyond rc^sonablfe doubt; ' instead of by a preponderance of the evidence. ' 'WC claim and respect^Uy insist that this tribunal has < none of the attributeB of':a jhdicial'court, as they are eom-' mbuly received aijd, underfltood. Of course, this (juestion must be largely detcTimnod by the expreas provisions of the ConBtitUtioniand- init tbfere is no word, as is weU knowii to yofi, Senators, which gives the BUghtest coloring to the idea thai this is a court, save that in the trial of this ' particular r^^pohd'^nt, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court mtist preside. But even this provision can bave no determining effect npon the nueation, because, is not tbis thbsame tnbunalin all Itsfbwers, incidents and duties, when other Civil Wficera are brought to ita bar for triid, when the Vice President (hot a judicial officer) must pre side? Canit be contended for a moment that this is tbe Senate of the United States when sitting on the trial of all other officers, and a court only when the Presidout is at the bar? anloly because in this casei the Constitution bas designated tho Chief Justice as the jircsidiug officer? The fact that Senators are aittmg for uiis purpose on oath or affirmation does not infiuence the argument, be- ciuee it is well understood that this wa? but a substitute for the obligation uf honor uuder which, b.v thetheory of the British Constitution, the noers of England wore sup posed to sit in like cases. Aiieer of England makea answer in a court of chancery upon ^lonor, when a common person must answer upon oath. Butour fathers, dw^eping away all distinctions of caate, require every man alike, acting in a solemn proceed ing like tbis^to tmke an oath. Ovir OonBtitutioni holds aU good men alike honorable, and entitled to hdhor. Tiieidea that this tribunal was a court seems to have crept iu UucauKC ot th« anal'^gy to eimllar proceedinKS in triala before ths House of Lords. '' JAnaloglea have ever been 'foimd deceptive and lUijisorot..,, Before suohfamalogy is. invoked we nust not forget that tne iiouaes of Parliament at first, and latterly the HoUf-q^ ot ., Lords, claimed and exerciei-d juyisdiction over all cnmeq, even where the puniubment extcndea to life and limb. By express provision df our Constitution all euch" juribdiction;'-- ia 'taken from the 'Senate, aud "tbe judicial power of tho.i; United States is vested in one Supreme Court, and such in-ij ferior courts as from time to time Congress may oidain and estabUsh." We auggfiB*^, thpruforc, that we are in the presence bf tbe Senatfe ofthe United States, convened aa 4 constitutional tribunal,' to -inquire into aud determine'' whether Andrew Johnson; because of malveisatiuM in office, is'longer fit tp rbtaih the' office of President of the ' United States, or hereafter to hold any oflice of honor or ' profit. ' ' I ¦, ' ' , I respectfully submit that thus far youl* mode ofpro-' ceeding haa no analogy to that of a court. You issue a summons to give the respondent notice of the case t^^nding against him. .'xon do not sequester his peraon-ryou do not require hia peteOnal appeal^ bncfe eVe^ ; you proceed against hiin,>and will geon 4.D determine his canse in hit !ibsenc tl^^'land used ihothci-lnfti*i6r courts?' And that rela tion, which was in cont-avcn-tion of' the opinion'of all Ae i'udges' of England; Knd again^tr tbe remonstrance of Richard II, remains the unqueitioned law of England, to thie day. ' ' ¦ I Another detennioing, quaUty, jOf the,>tnbunal, distin- guiehing it from a court and the analogies of ordinary legal proceedings, and shelving that it is a Senwte. only, la that fhere eau Be no riglit of challenge by either .party to, r any of its members forfavor or malice, affinity qv interest* This l\aa been beld from the earUest times in Parliaraent, ev6hwlien tha.t was the high court of judicature of the' realm, sitting'td'punit'b all crimes against thtepea^so, " ¦ i In the case oflthe Duke of Somerset (1 Howell's State Trials, p. 521), as early as 1551, ic waa held that the Duke of ^Northumberland and--tbe- Marquis, of Northampton and the Earl of Pembroke, for an attempt^ upon whose lives .Somerset was on trial, should sit-in judgment upon him Trials, p. 765,) MarquiS of Northampton and Earl of War wick, on trial for their criiu*a. A; D. 1553, before the Court of the Lord High Steward of England, being one of the prisoherflvinnrutred' whether anv such' persons as were equaUv culnable in that crime, and those bv whoae letters and commandments he was directed in all his doingdin might be his judges or pass upon hia trial at hie, death., i^'tit was auswered that :— , , , , ¦£ • \ "If any wei-e as deeply toUe'touched'-aB liimself in that case, yet aa long as no attainder of record were agaimstu thflpiflbey were neyerthel<»B.perflon8, able in the law, to pass upon any trial, and'nOttobb chaUeugecf therefor, biit atthe Princess pleasurer ' . > , ;, ,. , m; Agaip, .Qn the trial of the.Earlaof Essex and.Snuithamn- tonlihrd.,l.StateTriar8,p. 1335) lor high tfeasonV fiefoFe' ' aU the'jUBticerfofEngland, A. D; 1600, the Barl of Essex id&-i Bir,ed to knowiof my, Lord Chief Jufttice whetherthe might ., chrtlluiise any of 'the peers or no. WhereunXo tiie LcffU Chief J^kice answered' 'Nd.' '* . •¦ -:¦-'; -i 71 .^T/'i Again, in Lord Audley's case (ibid 3 State Trials, psge 402. A. P ¦"^^' '* *- — " -^--' ¦• »"¦ chal' igaiu, m j^oiQ Auaieys case iiDia 6 state Trials, psge I. A.D, 1631), it was questioned whether a peer niight ilUenge his peers, as' m the case of cohiteob jurats. It wasanawei-ed by Iall the judges, after consultation, *'he ^?^^'*'jfl*''' t fhis case was ot more value, becauae it was ¦amfadictfiientforbfeirfgr'acfcc&sbi'ytb ra'pe upon hifl- own .wife, and bad no political infiuende in it whatever 1- The' ,BapMj)ointwas:r*dcdt»iuithe,CoimtesB of Esaex'a case, on itnaltorti'easdn. (MrtOre'S Keports, 621.) ' ' '^ '' ln;tbe Earl prPortlaHd's case, A. £>. 1701 (ibid: State' Irials, page 288), the Couimons obj ectedi ..that Lord bom- raers, theLarl of Oxford and Lord HalifitS. Vvho had been impeached by the Commons before the House of Lords for being conderaed in the satno acts for which Portland waa being brought to trial, voted and acted with the House »af Lo; Is in tlie preliminary proceedings of said trial, and , Were npon a committee ,of couterence in relation thereto. Butthe lorda, after disefUBwou, solemnly resolved "That; nq lord of Parliament, impeached of high crimes andh misdemeanors, can be pi-ecliided^ fcom votins on anv occasion except on bis own triS." In the trial of Lord Viacount Melville^ A* D. 1806, (ibid, , .IMPEAGHMBNT 0¥ ANDREW JOHNSON. 49 "Mv lords, as to your own court, something has been thrown out about tfifei possibUity of a chaUenge. Upon .Bucnacuhjeetit will. not, bo neopssaryto say more than this, which hap, been admitted-that an order was given tv the Houee of Commons to prosecute Loiid MelviUoan,* court oiTlaw where he would ha^e the riV>t( to, chaUenge „hls jurors. • * • ,WbAt.idid the noble Viscnnnt then do by the means of oneof his fRit-ndsf • . * ;. * .rrom the.mouth of tbat^JaM-ned.geDtleman campat. last .the successful motion— ''what, Henrv, Viacount lof Mel ville, Tdo impeached of high ppimfeaand misdemeanprt." I aro justified, then, in saying ith«the is h/Te by ibis own option * * * ¦ But, mylord, a chaUenge to your , lord> A vote being had upon the question, it was decevmined I ,that these gentlemen shonld ait and vote on the trial. -Tbis passed in the affirmative; by a vote of 19 to,7, and aUt^e Igentlemen, sat, and voted on every question durmg the ' On the trial ^of Samuel Chase .before the Senate of the' 'United ^ates, no challenge was attempted^ although the lease was decided hyaU' almost strict party vote in high party times, , and .doubtlosa many of the Senators had 'formed and expressed opinions upon his conduct. That ¦ftrhitraryjudge, but learned lawyer, knew too much to at tempt any auch fntUe movement aea challenge to a Sena- .^to^. Certain it is. that the iprQW"ieties of the occasion were not marred by the worpftjthan, anomalous proceeding «f rthe challeuge of one Senator to anoihen,; especially betore ;tbe defendant had appeared. , ';. . j^ „ ^ „ l ¦ Nor,did thermanagers exerciseibe nght-of challenge, al-, .though SenatorBSimth and MitcheU of New Yerk Were mein Ders of the Senate on the trial, and voted notguiBtv\ 'naWpoflition to limit tftenujpbprQf ijudgea,ithe *^^^^Jffiff|caseofipipeacW aie thesioanB of the people, and for the highest crimen »b4 carry with ttiem aVeater- supposition o*i guilt tban any otheif aecu- ¦j^tion, there »]^ dbe lo^ds must jHd£«.** .Spi Sc There have been many instances in iEmsliind whore th3a necOBsity, that no peer be excused from ,8itting on such trials, bas' produced curious results. Brothers have i!|tt upoui the trials of brothem ; fathers' npon'the'trials of sons aiid daughters ; uncloB upon the truhls 'ofi , i . ' ¦ - One. and a most peculiar and painful instancei "ivill suf fice upon this point to illustrate the strengh of the rule. In the trial of Anne Boleyn, the wife of one sovereign of England; and theinother of nnnther,herfather,Lord Kocho- fort, und her uncle, tbe Duko of Noriolk, sat as judges atid voted guiltv, although ono of the charges against daughter and. nioce was a criminal intimacy with her brother, tbo .son and. nephew of the judges. ¦- It would seem impoeuible that in a proceeding befofe sucha-tribuhal'SO constituted,'tlicrb COTUdbe a challenge. because aathenumbcr of triers ia limited by law, and as there are no* now, and never have been, any provisions either in England br in this country for substituting .- another for tiiexhallenged party, as -a .tnleHraan is subati- > tuted in a jury, the accused might escape punishment altogether b.v chaUenging a sufl'icient nuraber to prevent a .quorum; or the accusers might oppress the respondent by challenging all persons favorable to him until the neces- .'aBaryunanimilty for conviction W^aa secured. _ . ' This proceeding being but an inquest of officff, and, ex- cc-ptin a few rare instances, alwaya partaking, juore Or lesB, of political conbiderations, and required to be dis cussed, before presentation to the triers, by the co-ordi nate branch of the legislature, it is impossible that Sena tors ahould not have opinions and convictions upon the aubject matter more or' less decidedly fonned before tbe case reaches them. If, therefore, challenges could be al lowed because of such opinions, as in the case of jurors, no ,trial could po forward, because every ¦ intelligent Senator could be objected to upon ohe Bide or the otber. ¦ I Hhould have hardly dared to trouble the Senate with ¦uch minuteness of citation and argument upon this point, were it not that certain porsous and papers outside of this bodv, by Bopi-ietries drawn from the analogies of the pro ceedings in courts before juries, have endeavored, m ad vance, to prejudic©tbe public mind, but little instructea in this topic, because ot the infrequency of impeachments, against the legal validity and propriety of the proceedings upon this trial. ^ ' J \, j. ,. '^' I may be permitted, without offenae, further to state, that these and similar reasons bave prevented the mana gers from objecting, by chuUenge or otherwise, to the coui- petencv^of one of the tridrs. of near affinity to the accused. We believe it is hia right, nay, his duty, to the State he rqpreaentfe, to sit upon the trial as he would upon any cfher matter which should come before tbe Senate. Hie seat and vote belongs to hia conKtituents, apd not to hira- iself, to be need, according to his bestjudgment, upon eVery grave matter that comes before the Senate. , . Again, :as political considerations are in this tnal, raising questionfl of^intereat to the constituents of every Senator, it is hia right and dutv to express hitaself aa fully ana ¦freely upon such questions as upon any other, even to^ex- press a belief in the guilt or innocence of the accuaed, or -to say he wUl sustain him in the course he is.takiug, although he ao says after accusation brought. - Letme illu^rate. Suppose tbat after this impeachment .hadhebn voted'by the House of KopreBentatives, the con-, -Btituentaof any Senator bad called a public nreeting tb surtainthe President agaiust what tb©y were plea-'cdto -term tbe "tyrannical actsof Congress 'towards bmi m ini- ,peaohing him,'? and should caU upon their Senator to .attend and take part in such meeting. 1 do not conceiVb -that it would, or ought to ,b© legaUy objected against hith as a disqualification to sit upon this trial, upon the pnnci- rple^ Iihbvestfated, if he should attend the meeting or fafvm* 'the(obJect, or-if his engagements in the Senate preventea his le&vihC' * '. * [ ^ - . ¦ i 1 have not been ahle ¦to flnd any legal objection .in th'e •jbooks to his writing a letter to such meeting, containing, among other things, statements like the ioHowing :— Senate Ohamijeh, Feb. 24, 1868.-Gentl6nien;-My pub lic and professional engagements will be such on the 4tb ot March that I ain reluctantly comJcUed to decime your tn- ivitation to be present ahd addj'ess 'the meeting to De^ ncio in your city on that day. * * ^ , ¦ Shatlche Prtsidont df the United States has sinwirely tn- a»vored to preserve those (our free institutions) from viq- latioal have no doubt; and I have, therefore, thrqugnout the unfortunate ditterence of opinion between him and lOongress sustained him. And this I shall continue to do ao long as he shall prove faithful to duty.' With niy best ¦thanks for tbe honor yoil have done me by your invitation. and regrettiug that it is not in my power to accept it, 'I remaif., with Tegird', your |t|^ien^^^^''J'§iiNgoN. Eighth to hope f Mm Henry knew the strength of his caee, and we know lie strength of ours against this respondenti If it is faid that this is an infelicity, it is a snfflcjtent agS dBciiiite answer that it is the iofelicil* pfaprecui^ouHlj ffiraiaJ provision, :which provides that "tht 'Senate shaU hive the sole powerto try impeachment, Und tho only se- ouritv against bias or prejudice oBthepartiof any Senator Ta that two-thirds of the Senator! present are necessary for conviction. ''. ' ^ , ¦; ¦ .. j, „ a To this rule -there is but'<,ne possible exception, founded oh both reason a-nd authority, that a Senator may not be - judge 1% his owtf case.' riftave thought it necessary to detenmne tbejiature and attributes of the iiibunal, befoie ^60 .IMPEACHMENT OB ANDREW ^OHj^SOIir. wea^tendto the scope andmcaningof theaccuBation be fore it. . ¦ ¦ ¦ ' ¦ . Hi! ' . ' t Tbe first eight articles set out in sevefal distinct forms the acts of thy respondent in removing Mr. Stanton from ofice, and appoin tine M^ Thoinas, ad int^im^ differing m legal en^ect in the pujPOBea.for whicfa'iand the intent .with which eitbcJ-prttotb of tho 'acts were dono, and tbe 4egal duties and.rights infringed, and the auts of Congreas violated in so4oing,:. , • ¦.• ¦' ,i i ¦ '-- All t^ie articles aUege these act^ to be in contravention of his oath of office, and in disregard of the duties thereof. If they are so, however, Hthe President might have the power to do tjhem .under the law;:8till, being so done, they art' acts of official misconduct, and, as we have seen, im peachable. ' , J (1' '. : ' Tbe President has the -legal rower to do many acts which, if done, in disregard of ihis ^duty, or for improper Surposca, then the exerciBc of that'power is an^ifhclal mis- emeanor. ,, . , . ' . f i . ¦ ' __Kx, gr: hebaB,thB power of pardon; if exercieed 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 he multiplied' indefi-' nitely.' . --. ^n ¦ ¦¦¦.-.:' '' ' Article first, stripped of l^al verbiage, alleges Ibat, hov- ing Bufjp^ded "Mr; Stanton and reperted the sanje to^ the, .Bcnate, whi^h refused to concur in the snspenEioD, ftnd Stanton having rightfully r-esumed the dutiea of his officfe, the respoudent, with knowledge of the facts, 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 ofhcee, and with the further intent to re move Stanton from the ^otfice of Secretary of War, then in -tlie lawf ul discharge of its dutiefi,i in Contra vention of said act without the advice and consent i of -the Senate, and against the Conatitution ofthe United Statee Article 2 charges that the President*, without iiuthority of law, on the 2lBt of February, 1863, issued letter of an-, thority to Lorenzo Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, the Senate being in session, in violation of the Tenure of Ofiice act, and with intent to violate it and the Constitution, there being no vacancy in> the of^ce of Sec-' retary, of War. , , , ¦ ,., , i > m . Article 3,allegeB tbe.same act as dbne without authority of law, and alleges' an intent to violate tbe Constitution. Article 4 chargea thatthe President conspired with Lo renzo Thoma-B and divers other persons, with intent, by iiitimidation and threats, to prevent Mr. Stanton from holding the office of Secretary of War, in violation of the tJonstitution aud of the act ot July 31, 1861. 1 Articles charges the same conspiracy with. Thomas 'toi prevent Mr. Stanton's holding his ofiiGe, and thereby '*oi prevent, the execution of the civil tenure act. Article .6 charges that the President feonspirei with . ThomaB to seize and poBsess the property undetithe control, of the War Department hy force, in contravention of the actof Jul^'31, 1861, and with intent to disregard the civil tenure of oflice act . , ' , Ai'ticle 7 chargea the eame "Conspiracy, with intent onlyi to violate thecivil tenure of office act. - . i Articles 3d. 4th, 5th, 6th. and 7th may be considered to-l gether, as to the proof to support them. - „ '¦<'¦¦¦ > It win be shown that having removed Stanton and ap- , -pointed Thomas, the President sent Thomas to the War Ofiice to obtain poaeeesion i that having been met by Stan- ,ton with a denial of bis rights, Thomas retired, and after coneultation .with the Preaidont, Thomaa asserted his pur- ' poae to take possession of tbe War Office by force, making pis boaet in several public places of his intentions so to' do. but was preveuted by being promptly arrested by pr<>- cesB from the court, ¦ | This wiU be shown by.thC' evidence of Hon. Mr, Van! Horn, a member of tbe House, who was present when tbe 1 demand for possession of the 'War Office was made by G^e- npral Thomas, already madepublic-.' ' By the testimony of the Hon. Mr. Burleigh, whb; after that, in the evening of the twenty-first of February, was told by Thomae that bc intended to take possession of the War Office by force the following raorning, and invited. him upto,Bce th&, performance. Mr. Burleigh attended, but the act did not come off, for Thomas had been arrested and held to bail. ' \ By Thomas boasting, at Willards* Hotel on the same evening that he shouljicail on General Grant for military force to put hira in possession of the office, and he did nOT Bee how Grant could refuse it Article 8 charges that thei appointment of Thomaswafi made for the purpoee of getting contror of the disburse ment of the moneys appropriated for the military aervicft and Department of War. , .,,[-: In addition to the proof , already addsueed, ifc'will be shown that' after the appointment of Thomas, which jnust have been known to the membera of hia Cabiifet, the president caused a formal notice to be Basrved ou tHe Secretary of the Treasury,! to frhe, end that the Sfeciretairv might auswer the requieltions for money of Thomas, and Hiifl waa only prevented by the fil-mness with which Btantnn retained possession of the books and^papera of the WarOlHce, -,,.,, *¦ r It wi4,be Been, that every factt charged in Article 1 is ad mitted by the^answer of the respondent! the intent is alBoadmitted aa chai-gedi that is to say. to flet aside the avil teuurw of office act and to remove Mr. Stanton from t^-C ^^hico for , tlie Secretary of the , Department of- War without the advice and consent of tlie Senate, auds if not IS^Vf^ ^¦'*'''^^^**''^ *o the proviBloni of the Constitution quiry is to be fct^rmined, wh9tber Andrevv Jonni*r)nbaB so conducted Tiimself that he oUght longer to hold any constitutional office whatever. The latter sinka to merited insignificance corapared with the gfandeur of the former. . : Jf that is surtained, then a right and bower hitherto un claimed and uuknown to the people of the country is eiw grafted on the Constitution, most alarmihg in ita extent, moat corrupting in its influence, moat dangero'Urin ita ten^^ (dencies: and most tyrannical in ita exercise. '"' Whoever, therefore. Votes "not guilty" on t^ese artielep, votes to enchain our free institutions, and'to prostrate -them at the feet of any man whov being President, may choose to control them. - ' ¦ 1 ¦For this moat Btupendouff and unlimited prerogative the 'respondent cites no line and adducep nd word of consti tutional enaetment—iindeed be"eould',ndtv for tbe only mention of removal from office in the COhMitution i>* as a pait of the judgment in case of irapeafcbihent, and the onli' power of appointment is by nomination to the Senate of officers to be appointed by tpeir advfce: and consent, save a qualified and limited power of appointment by ^i* President when the Se^nate is notin seBsion,, Whencfe then does the respondent by his answer claim ^o- have derived this power? I giv^ hira'-thd benefit of Mb oWn words, "thatit was practically settled bvthe'fiststCDngresB of the United States." Again, Tgive! him the 'benefit of Ji^s own phraaes as set forth in hie mtossage to tbe Sbnate of 2d ctf March,'1867, made a part of his ane wer:— "The question waa decided by tbe House of Representatives hy a vote OJf 34 toSO, (in this, however, he la mistaken,) and id (be Se nate by the easting vote of the Vice President" In th^ same answer ho admits that before he undertook the exct- cise of this most dangerous and 'stupdndouii power, after Beventy-five years of study and examination of tbe Con stitution by the people living under It, another CongresB has decided tbat there was no Buch unlimited power. S6 thatpb adhiits that this tremendous power whichhe claims fi'om the legislative coustructidn of one Congress by a vote of 34 to 20 in the Houee, and a tie vote in the Se nate, haa been denied by another Houae of more than . three times the number bf raeral^rs-by a Vdte of 133 to 37 j and by a Senate of more than double the numoer of Sena tors by a vote of 38 to 10. and thia, too, after he haft pre sented to them~»U the arguments in its favor that he could find to suatain his claim of power, 'If he derives this power from the practical settlement of one Congress of a legislative construction of the constitu- tinndl iffovisions. why may 'not Buch construction beas practically settled.more authoritatively by -the greater una nimity ot another? Oonere8s->^yea, aa we sbftU sec. of many other CongrcBBCB? ' The great qUcBtion, , however, still returns upon us— whence 6o'mea this newer?— how derived or conferred? Ti it unlimited and unrestrained? lUimitable.and'hnrestraiil- flhle, as the Frestdenvbla£niB4ttopowBr,prei*flgaliveB, privlljqgos and immunaties enjoyed byexecutivo ofb^eVi^'Of other countries— kings and emperore-!-wit)hout limitation? If ao, $hen the Constitution has been much more liberal in f ranting powers to the Executive thaii to tbe legislative ranch of the Royernment, aathat has only '^alilegipltttlve powers herein granted (which) shaU be vested in the Con gress of > the Umted States ;" notaU uncontroUable legiBla- tive powers, as there are, many limitations upon that poiyer aa exerciaed hy the Parliament of England for lex- anjple. So there are many executive ppwers expressly limited in tbe Constitution, such as declaring war, makhig rules abd regulation sfdr the government of the army and ¦ navy, ahd coining mpney. , ¦ , accordance "with, the theory ofthe Conatitution tnimply'the power of removal from the power of appointment, restrained by like limitations, than to imply..it solely as a prerogative of executive power and therefore illimitable and iiucontioUable? Have the people any where else in the Constitution granted illimit able and uncontrollable powers either to the executive or auy other branch of tbe government? Is not the whole power of covernraent one of eheckfl, balances, and limita- ¦tiona? Is it to be believed that our fathers, jUst escapinp from. tbe oppressions of monarchical power, and ao dread ing it that they feared tbe very name of king, gave tbia more than kingly power to the Executive, illimitable ahd uncontroUable, and that too by implication raerely? Upon tbis point our proposition is, that tbe Seuate being in eessiou, and an office, not an inferior one. within the tci nis of the Constitution beine filled, the President baa the implied po iver of inaugurating the removal on/i/ by n'.imiuation ofa successor to the Senate, which, when conaented to, works the full removal and aupeisedeas of tlie incumbent. Such has been, it is believed, tbe practice of the'goverument from the beginning, down to the act about which we are inquiring. Certain it is that Mr. "VVebater, in the Senate, in 1835, ao asserted TCith;out con tradiction, using the foUowing language:- *Tf one man oe Secretary of State, and another be ap pointed^ the first goes out by the mere force of the appoint- inent of the other, without any previouB act of removal whatever. And thia is the practice of the government and has heen from the firet. In allthe removals which have been made they have generally been effected aimply by making other appointments. 1 cannot find a case to the contrary. There is no such thing aa any dUtinct oflicial act of removal. I havet looked into tne practice, aud caused inquiri<:;B to he made in the departments, and I do not learn that any such urocee^ing is kuown as an entry or record of tbe removal of an, officer irpm office, andtlioPre-i sident would, only act in such cases uy GauaingsOme proper record or entry to be made as proof of the fact of removal. I am aware that there have been some cases in whiph no tice has been sent to peraons in office that their sei'vicea are or will be, after a given day, dispeneed with, Theee are usually cases in wnich the object is, not to inform the in cumbent that he is removed, but to tell him that a auc- ceseor eithcris, or hy aday named wiU be, appointed. If there be any instancea iu which such notice is given, with out express r^eference to the appointment of a Bucceeaor^ tbey are few; and evqn in. these such reference muat he implied, heCauBe in no case is there any distinct official act of removal, as I cau nnd. unconnected with the act of ap pointment. ' Tbis would aeem to reconcile all tl}.e provisions of the Constitution, the right of removal being in the President, to be executed sub modo, as is tho power of appointment, tbe appointment, when consummated^ making the remo- This power was elabprately debated in tbe first Opngress upon the bills ostabUshiqg a Department-of Foreign Atralra a^d the War Departraent, The debate aroae on^tlie motion^ fu Committee ofthe Whole, to strike out after the title ot tbcotficer, the wordsr '"to bo y^raoveblp from office by the PrdsHentnf the United States," Itwas four days dis cussed lu Committee of thewbqiein the House, and the clause iMained by a vote oj ,2() yeas to-34 , uavs. which fiecmed to fjiitablieh tbe power of removal as either by a legislative evant or construction of the Constitution. But the triumph 01 its friends ^^AB short-lived, for when the bill carae up ln,the.Hnuee, Mr. Benson, n3oved to amend it bv altering the second section of the bill, so as to xTn^Z'^/ dnla[ the power of removalitobewi ftho,,Prutident by in serting^ that "whenever theprincipal" oihoor shall be re moved from office b>- the Freaident ip'the lUnitcd States, ot in any other case oi vacancy,, the chief clerk shaU, during riuch vacancy, have charge and custody "Of -aU > records, bdoksi^nd papers appertaining to the departments" Mr. Benson "declared ho wpuld move to -atrike out the words m the first clause, to fie removable by^the Preai-i dinf, whicli appeared aomeMhat like.- a , grants. ..Now the nibdOfhe took would evade «b&t point and cstabllah a« legis- latiT^e cpnstructioh ofthe Cobatiti an/end^ent would 'But|ceed in reci ' He also hoped his ., , -.-, icifing botHpidOfTof'tfie Hqiidfe to the decisioii and quieting the' minds of the gen tlemen.'* f^ After debate the amendment was carried, 30 to 18. JHU'. Bcnaon then moved. to strik^ out the words "t0)bftJS- movable by the President of tho United Statea," which was Carried, 31 to 19; and so tho bill was engrossed and 'sent to theSenate. ' /' THe'debates of that body being in secret session, we have 'no record Of the discussion which arose on the raotion, of J|Ir. Benson establishing the implied po.wcr of rrarioyivl; but after very elaborate consideration, on several succm- fiive days, the words implying this power in the Preeidimt were retained by the casting vote of the elder Adams, tne Vice' Preeident. So, if this claim^ "legirfatiye scttlfe- ment** Was only eatablished by the vote of thp aecond exe cutive officer of the government Alaa!* most ofour woes in this govemment nave comii from Vice Presidfuta. When the bill establishing thp W&v Department came up, the same words, "to be reraovablb by the Preeident'* were struck out, ou the motion of one of the opponents of the rC- ' cognition of the power; by a vote of 24 to 22, n, Uke anu-nd- ttient to that of the seco:da section of the act establish ing the Department of State being inserted, Wlh'qn, six yea^ afterwards^ tbe Department of the Nayy was established, no such recognition of the power Of tho preaidont tore- move was inserted ; and ai the measure passed by a strict pdvtyvote, 47 yeas to 41 pays, it may well bc conceived 'that ita advocates did not care toloaditwi^th thia constitu' -tional question, when the executive power was about passing into other hands, for dne fcannot read tho debates upon tbia question without being impressed with tbe belief that reverence for the character of Washington largely de termined the arguraent in. the first Cbngre?s. Neither partT)" did or could have looked forward to p,ilch fi,n|exec.utive ad- rainietration as we have tbis day. , ,i It has generally been conceded in.EiibBequent'diBCueBions that here was a legislative deterraination Of this question; but I humbly submit that taking tho whole action of Con greas together, it is very far from being determined. I shoulji hardly nave dared, in view of tho eminent names .qt Bolmea, Clay, Webster ahd Calhdun, that have hcretofoi-p made the admieaion, to have ventured the assertion, were it not that in every case they, as dtjca the President anfl. his counsel, rely on the first vote ih the Committee of toe Whole, sustaining the worda "to be removable by the Pre sident," and in no instance take any notice of the subsG- quent proceedings in the House hy which these wor^ were taken out of the bill. This may have happened be cause "Eliot''} Debates," which ia the authority moat frcr Quently cited in these diBdussions. stops with the vote in 'ommittee, and takes no notice of the further diacussion. But whatever may be the eff'ect of this legielative con^ struction, the cotemporaneous and subsequent practice of the government shows' that the President made no re movals except b.v nominations to the Senate when in seaj- Bion, and superseding officers by a new commission to the confirmed nominee. Mr. Adanms. in that remarkable letter to Mr. Pickering, in which he desirea his resignafion, re^ quests him to send it early, in order that he may noraina^ to the Senate, then about to eit; and he, in fact, removes Mr. Pickering by a nomination. Certainly no such un limited power has ever bden claimed by any of the earll^? Presidents, aa has now been set up for the President by hu most remarkable, aye, criminal answer. ' ' ' ¦ , ,_^ It wUl not have escaped attention that no determination waa made by that legialative conatruction as to how'the removali if^in the President's power, shonld be made', which ia now the question in dispute. That has heen de^ termined by the universal practice of the government with exceptions, if any, so rare as not to be worthy of consideration; ao that we now/ilaim the law to he what tbe practice has ever been. If, however, we concede tbe power of removal to be in the President as an implied power, yet we believe it cannot bc euccessfuUy contended upon any authorities or constant practice of tho govern ment that the execution of that power may not be regu lated by tbe Congress of the United States, under the clause in tbe Constitution which "vests in Congress tl)e power to make all laws which Bhall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution * * * all pp^ver? vested hy this Constitution, in the Government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof." The power of regulation of the tenure of qffice. and the raanner of removal, haa always been exercised by CoU'. grese, unquestioned, until now. i On the 15th of May, 1820 (Vol. 3 Stat, at Large, p. 582^ Congress provided for the terra of office of certaia officers therein named to be four years, but made thein, re movable at pieaBuic. Bythe second eection of the aame I actCongreeis removed from office aU tho ptncers thereilj Gommiesioued, in providing a' dsito when each commii»8iQtt should expire, thus asserting a legislative power of re^ bv the moyt atringent provisions. Sometimes conferring tfie power of removal, and sometinica that of appointment —the actd establishing the territorial officera being most conspicuous in this regard. Upon the whole, no clAitai of exclusive, nght over rei movalB or appointments seems to have.^been made' either hv the Executive or by Cohgrefla. «Na piU Was ever vetoift dnthiaaccouht untu now, ¦ " ' ¦ ' ; ¦ JCn 1818, Mr. Wirt, then Attomey-General, giving the* edrlieBt official opinion on this qndfetion coming^fcqm tlwit dfHoe, 'BUid that only \\ here Congress had no.t iipijer-i .... .^^ tenure of office, by the act creamifiiiK^ tbkeu to restrict the t r^.2 .fl^PlAC'SMJlJirT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. .would a commission MSUB. to runtdurineahe, pleasure of *;the Preeident; but -if ™e tehur^ wSa'.f^'d by law»then commisdionmuateonfdrm to fh;e law. No constitutional Scruples OS to the poWer of ConferesB to limit the tenure df .qfiice seem to have diBtuibed the mind of that great law yer. But this waa beiore any attempt had been made by any President to arrogate to himself the official patronage for the purpose of party or personal aggrandisement which givea the only value to this opinion as an authority. . Since the Attorney- General's office naa .become a puljtical one I ahaU not trouble the Senate with diting or examin- . ing the opinions of its occupanta. ,^,^ In 1826, a Committee of the Senate, consisting of Mr. , Benton, of Missouri, chairnian ; Mr. Macon, of North Carp- lina; Mr~ Van Buren, of New York; Mr,, Dickerson, of Kew Jeraey: Mr, Johnson, of Kentucky: Mr. White, of TenpesBee; Mr. Holmes, of .Maine; Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, and Mr. Findlay, of Pennsylvania, waa appoiuted ''to .take ihto consideration the question ot rcatraining the ¦power of the President over remoyals from onice, who 'made a report through their chairman, Mr. Bentdn, setting Torih the extent of the evils arising from the power of ap- 'pointmcnt to and removal from office by, the Presidenf, aeclariug that the Constitution had beeh changed in this .Regard, and tliat "construction and legislation have ac- "edniplishcd this change," and submitted two am^endniontB 'to tho Constitution, one providing a direct election of the President by the people, and another ''^hat no; Senator or 'Eepresentative ahould be appointed to any place untu tbe -expiration of the Presidential term in which such person jBhaU have served as Senator or Representative," as reme- ¦'^es for aome of the evUa complained of; but the,coraraittee -Bay, that "not being able to reform the Constitution, in the 'election of President they ihuat go to work upon his .¦powers, and trim down these by statxUory enact- ^fdhits, whenever it can he done by law^ and with 'e just regard to the proner efficiency of government^ and for thia purpose reported six bills— one, to regulate the ;puhlication of the laws and public advertisementa ; an other, to secure in oMce faithful collectors and disbursers i^of the reyenuee, and to displace defaulters— fhe firat aection 'of which vacated the commissions Of "all officers, after a "given date, charged with the coUection and disbursement of the public moneys who had failed to account for such .moneys on or before the 30th day of September preceding ;" and the second section enacted that "atthe samo time a nomination is made to fiU a vacancy occasioned by the ex ercise of the Pi^esideut's power to remove frum ^office, the fact ofthe removal rfiau he stated to the Seuate with a re- pdrt df the reaadns foi" which snch offlcers mav have beeh removed; also a bill to' regulate tlfe appointment of post- masterB] and a bill to preyent miUtary and naval officers ifrom being dismiased the service at the pleaBure ofthe Prd^ aident, by inserting a clause in the commission of auch 'officers that "it ia to continue in force during good be- navior," and "that no ofiicer ^hall , ever Jiereaft^V P^.dis- TiniBBed the seryice except in pursuance oi the ,^entqiiQe of ^court-martiaL or upOnad^dress to the Presi^entifrom. the t.W'o houses of Congress.*? ' ' ' Is it not remarkable that exactly correlative measures to these have been passed fay the Ihirty-ninth CoiigresB, land are now the suhject of controversy at this bar? ' It does not sdem to hiive, occurred to this able committjee that Congress had not tb,e*pd^er to curb the Executive ^p Ijiifi regard, becitUse .they asaerted th^ practice of 4i3mis- feipg-from offipfe "to.bEj a dahgeroqs violation of the Con^ fltitUtlQU." . ' .' 1' ' *^'ln 1830 Mr. Hblmefe introduced and diacuBfcd in the Senate a series of rCfiOjLutionB which . cohtajijed, among ter thing.s "the right jDf the'Benit!e tounqvnre, and;tbe y of the President to inform thera, when apd for what ses anyofflcdr haa been removed in the reces8."i,In 1835 Mr.' Calhouh, Mr. Southard, Mt. Bibb, Mr* WehBtpr* jMi- Benton, and Mr. .King, 'of Georgia, of thd, Senate, weiie pected a committee to dohsidei,' the subject ofEiecytiv^ patVohage, and the means of limiting i^. That dojnmittGe, with but one dissenting voice (Mr, Benton), reported a bill Which provided in its third aection, "that inallnqrainar tions made by the President to t^e Senate, to i^ll vacanciea dccasioned by removal frpm otfice, the, fact of the removal Bha}l be stated. to the Seuate at the sqme tinie that the no-: tuination is made, with a statepientof thereasdnBsForsuch reraoval.'* .> * 'It wiU be observed that. this., is tbeprecise section re-, Sorted by Mr., Benton in 1826, and paapjad td a, Becond lead- ig in tbe Senate. Aftei,' much discussion the; bill pased- the Senatte, 31 yeas, 16 nays— an almost two-thirds votOii Thus it would seem that the ablest men of that day,- of both political parties, subscribed to the power, of Congress tp limit'aud control the President in hia removal from otfice. One of the moat marked instancea of this ppwer in Con- gi-ees WiU be found iu the act of February 25. 1863, provid ing for a national currency and tho office of comptroller.; (Statute at Large, vol, 13, p. 66^. This controls both the appointment aud the removal or that officer, enacting that heehaUbeappointedon the noraination of tbo Secretary- of the Treasury, by and with tbe advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold bis office fpr the term of five yoars, nnlcss sooner removed, by the P;i:eBident by apd with the- advice and consent of the Senate, This was subatantially re-enacted June 3, 1864, with the addition that "he shaU hQ. Removed upon reasonB to bp communicated to th& Senator" ; Where were Ehe vigilant gentlemen thep, in both Houaea,, who now HO denounce the power of CongreBS to regulate the appointment and rdnloval of officers by the President ^unconstitutional? '/ , i ' ItwUl be observed that the Conatitution sn^keB no dif ference between the officers of the ariny and navy and o|hcersmthe civil aervicei ao far aq tb^lr appointments 4Wd commissSons.ia'emov^- and dismissals, are GOncernejk Their commiasions have ever rub, "to hold ontce aunu the pleasure Of IhePresident;" yet CongresB, by the ^etof 17th .July, 1862, (Statutes at Large, vbhime 12, pa^e98W| enacted "that tbe President of. the United States be aafl hereby is authorized and requested to dismiss ahd ^ charge from the railitary service, either in the army.navyt marine corpa or volunteer force, in the United Statea w> vice, any officer for any cause which, in bisjudgmeB* either Renders auch officer unsuitable for, or whose memigi Bion would promote the public service.''' ¦ i Why wasit'^necessary to- authorize the Preaidont so ftl / doif he had theeonBtitiitional power to dismiss a railitaw officer at pleaBm-e?— and hia powers, whatever they are, w is not doubted, are the same aa in a civil office. Thea^ swer to this suggestion may be tbat thi^ apt was sim]^ Lone of supererogation, only authorizing hiin todo whatae was erapowered already to do, ahd. therefore, not bIk* cii^y pertinent to this diaetisaion. But on 13th of Jiily-lgsB. Congress, enacted '*that no offk* cer in the military or naval service shall, in time of peacOfi ; he dismissed pox^ service except upon, andinpureuaaM J of, the sentence of a court-martial to that eifect." Whir i becomes, then, of the respondent's objection tbat Congr^' cannot regulate hia power of removal from office? In^ 'Showrstorm of bis vetoed, why di<4no flake light down,(^ this provision? It concludes the whole question hereat^^ ifesiie;' It.is approved ; a,pproyal signed Andrew Johnson. ,'- It will iiotbe claimed, however, if the Tenure of Offidg -act is constitutional (and that questioni shaU not araie. ,'except as baa been done incidentally, for reasons hereatf« 'to be stated), that he could reraove Mr. Stanton, providw the office of Secretary of War comes within its provisiowii and one claim made nerehefore you, by the answer^ 'h> thU that office la excepted by the terms Pf the law. Of eburiMh I shall not argue to tbe Senate, composed mostly of thate .who pasaed the biU, what their wishes and intentioM were. Upon that point 1 cannot aid them, but the coa. atruction ofthe act furnishes a few suggestions. First 1« ua determine th.e exact status of Mr. Stanton at the mu^ mentof its passage. The answer admits Mr. Stanton wafi appointed and commissioned and duly qualified as Seem tary df War, under Mr. IJncoln, in pursuance ofthe actdf -1789. In the absence of any other legislation or action o| the President, he legally held hia oifice during the tenn os his natural life. This conBiddratioh isan answer to everjR Bimgestion aa to the Secretary holding over ftaan one Pnf sidential term jto another. ^. - ' On the 2d of Mtarch, 1867w the Tenurb'of Office act tt^ vided in substance that aU^ civil officei^ duly qualififedTO act by appointment, with the advice and ' Consent of the Senate,! shall be entitled to hold such office. untU a succei ¦sor shaU have heen inlikp manner appointed anddifly qualilied. except aa herein otherwise provided, to wit?« Jirovided, That the Secretaries shaU hold their office d-ui* By whom was Mr. Stanton appointed^ By Mr. Liia,eol!L Whose Presidential term was ne hPldihg 'under when tlfl bullet of iBooth became a proximate cause of this trfai Was not his. appointment in full foiled at tbat^hourf' H^ atoy actof the respondent up to the 12th day of AngnaV vitiated or interfered with that appointment? Wno^"l sidential term is the -irespoudent now serving oa'tr"*^ ewn, or ' Mr. Lincoln's? If his own',' he iaentitled to !l.., years up to tbe anniversary of the mUrder, becauae bw Preaidential term is four years by the OOn'stitUtioh,'3' the regular recurrence of tho^ tertna ii fixed by the'J May 8, 1792. If he is aerving out the remainder of Mi> coin's term, then bis term df office expires eto the fi March, 1869^ if it does not before. ¦. . ;> 1 Is not the Btatement of these propositions their auflS'cii^ argument? If Mr. Stanton's commiasion was vacated'ia auy way bythe "Tenure of Office' act," then it;uu8tha'M erased one month after the 4th df March, 1865, to wifi AprU 4, 1865. Or, if the Tenure of Office acthadhorff' troactive effect, then his comraiBsionmnsthaVe ceased if St had the eff'ect to vacate his coramission at aU oh thepii^ saige of the act to wit 2d March, 1867; and, in that casft frora that day to the present he mnst bave been eaierciBini hia office in contravention of the aecond section- of thd act,, becaneeiie was not coramisaioned itt accordance T^ith jta provisions. And the Prcsldeut, by "eraploj^ing" him'^ BO doing from 2d March to 12th August, becarae euilty of a high ihiademeanor under tbe provision of the sixth Bdctim cf aadd act ; so that if the President shall succeed in cOfi> vinding the Senate that ' Mr. Stanton has been actihR^g Secretary of War against the Tenure bt Ol]&ce act, w«oo he Tvilliiao if he con^'iuce them that thait act vacated i^ aiiy ' way;Mr..Stantdn*B'dommiHBion, or that he himself.'*'*'" ^Ql serving out the remainder of Mr. Lincoln's Pn^idebtiw term, vthen the Houee of RepreaentatiVes have but to report anotiier article for this misdemeanor to reipOTe the Pre^; dent upon hia own confession. ' r, . v '¦¦ , It has been said, however, that In thedl^u^sionat wpi tanie .of the passage of this law, obsdrvaaohawere mao^, by> Senators tending to show that it didWot &pplytoM?s Stanton^ because itwas assorted that no member of .tnf Cabinet nf the President would wish to hold bia pla6| against thewisheB of bis chief, by whom' he had hp^ ctulod)into council; and theso arguments have been maflj tbe ground work of attaek upoa a meritorious officfl^E which mayhavo so influenced thie minds of Senators tha£ it is my dhtyto ohaerve upoii ^em, to meet arguments to, the nrejifice of my cause. ,' ' Without stopping to deny the corrootnesa of the genets)^ IMPEACHMENT^ OF ANDREW JOHNSON. General ULYSSES S. GRANT. (4) IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 53 proposition, there seems to be at least two patent answers I'he respondent did notcaU Tm'. Stanton into his council. The blow of the aasaeein did caU the respondent to preside Cfvfer a Cabinet of which Mr, Stanton waa then an honored nxember, beloved of its chief; and if.the respondent d^ uerted the principlea under which he was elected, betrayed his truatand eought to return Hebels whora the valor of our almies had subdued, again into power, are uot these rea sons, not only why Mr. Stanton shouldnot desert his post, but, 'aB a true patriot, maintain, it aU the more firmly against this unlooked-for treachery? . Js it not known to you, Senators, and to the country, that Mr. Stanton retains this unpleasant and distasteful position not of his own wUl alone, but at the behest of a majority of those who reprcaant the people of this coun try in both houses of its Legislature, and aiter the solemn deciaion of the Senate that any attempt to remove him without their concurrence is unconstitutional and un lawful. To desert it now, therefore, would he to imitate the treachery of his accidental chief. But whatever maybe the construction of the Tenure of CivU Office act by Mbers, or as regards otbers, Andrew Johnson, the respon dent, is concluded upon it. ^e permitted Mr. Stanton to exercise the duties of his dmee m spite of it, if that office were affected by it He Buspended him under its provisions; he reported that bus-' pension to the Senate, with his reasons therefor, in ac- cordanco with its provisions, and the Senate, acting under it declined to concur wiih him, whereby Mr. Stanton was reinstated. In the weU-known language of the law, la not the responsdent eetopped by his solemn official acts from denying the legality and constitutional pro priety of Mr. Stanton's poaition ? Before proceeding further, I desire moat earnestly to bring to the attention of the Senate the averments of tho Preeident in bis answer, by which be justifies his action in attmintiug to remove Mr. Stanton, and the reasons which controlled him in so doing. He claims that on the 12th day of August last he had become fully of the opinion that henad the power to remove Mr. Stanton or any other exe cutive ofiicer, or suspend him from offlce aud to appoint any other person to act instead "indefinitely and at hia pleasure ;''^that he was fully advised and believed, as he still believes, that the Tenure of Civil Office act'was un constitutional, inoperative and void in all its provisions, and tbat he had then deterrained at all hazards, if Stanton could not be otherwise got rid of, to remove him from of- fic^in spite of the provisions of that act and the action of the Senate under it, if for no other purpoae, in order to raise for a judicial decision tbe question affecting tbe lawful right of aaid Stanton to perBistinrefuaingto quit the office. Thus it appears that with full intent to resist tho power of the Senate, to hold the Tenure of Oflice act void, and to exercise this iUimitable power clairaed by hira, he did sus pend Mr. Stanton, apparently in accordance with the pro visions ofthe act; be did eend the meesage to the Senato within the time prescribed by the act ; he did give hia rea sons for the suspension to the Senate, and argued thera at length, accompanied by what he claimed to be the evidence of the official misconduct of Mr. Stanton, and thua invoked the action of the Senate to assist bim in displacing a high omcerof the government under the provisiouB of an act which he at that very moment believed to be unconstitu tional, inoperative and void, thereby showing thathe waa willing to make use ot a void act and the Senate of the United States' an hia tools to do that which he believed neither had any constitutional power to do. Did not every raember of the Senate, when that mea- sage came in annoimcing the suapcnc'ioa of Mr. Stanton, Buderatand and believe that the President was acting in tlua case as he bad done in every other Case, under the proviaions of thia act ? Did not Jboth sides 'diecusa the question under its provisions ? JVnuld any Senator upon this floor, on either side, demean himself aa to consider the question ono moment if he had known ifr was then ' within the intent and purpoae of the President of the United S^tea to treat the (teUberati^R and action of the Senaw as void and of no etfect if itti decision did not eoraport with his views and purposes; and yet, while acknovvlcdglng the intent was m hia mipd to bold aa naught the judgraent of the Senate if it did not concur with hie own, and reraofe Mr. Stanton at all hazards, and as 1 charge it upon bim here, aa a fact no mah can doubt with the full, knowledge also tbat the Senate un- acrstood that he was acting under the provisions of the 1 enure of Office act, Btill thus deceiving them, when called to answer for a violation -of that act in' his solemn answer he makes the ehamelees avowal that he did not transmit to tbe Senate of the United Stateii a * message wherein he made known the orders afore said and tne reasona which induced the samd, so ^r aa the reapondent then considered if piaterial and neces- sajry that the same ahould be aet forth.** True it i.-^, there is not one word, one letter, one impUca tion in that mesaage that the President was not acting in good faith under the Tenure of Office act, and deairing the Senate to do the same. So the President of the United States, with a determination to aaeert at all hazai'da the tremendous power of removal of every officer, without the "' consent of the Senate, did not deem it "material or neces sary" that the Senate should know that he had suspended Mr. Stanton indefinitely against the provisions of the Te nure of Office act, with full intent at aU hazards to re move him, and that the solemn deliberations of tbeSc- , nate, which the President ot the United.Statea waa then cauing upon them to make in a matter of the highest go vernmental concem, were only to ha effuse m case they Buited hia purpose; thatit waa not "Uaaterial or Mces- sarv" for the Senate to know-that its bigh decision was futile and ueeleBs ; that the President waa playing fast and loose with this branch of tbe govemment— a sort of ' 'heads I win, tails you loose" game— which was never before ex ercised save by thimble- riggers and aharperif. If Andrew Johnson never committed any other offense; if we know nothing^ of him save from thia^avowal, we should have a full picture of hia mind and heart, painted in colors of Uving lightj so tbat no man will ever mistake his raental and moral Imearaents hereafter. Instead of open and frank aealing, as becomes the head of a great government iu every relation of life, and espe ciaUy needful from the highest executive officer of the go vernment to the highest legialative branch thereof; in stead of a' manly, straightforward bearing, claiming openly and distinctly the righta which he ¦ believed per tained to his high office, audyielding to the other branches, fairly and justly, those which belong to thdm, we find him, upon hia own written confeasion, keeping back hM claims of powert concealing bia motivea. covering his pur posea, attempting hy indirection and subterfuge to do that as the ruler of a great nation which, if it be done at alL ahould have been done boldly, in the face of day; and upon this poaition he must stand before the Senate and the country if they believe his answer, which I do not that he had at that time these intents and purposes in his mind, and they are not the subterfuge and evasion and after-thought which a criminal brought to bay makes to escape the consequences of hia acts. Senators! he asked you for time ip which to make hia answer. Ydu gave him ten days, and this ia tbe answer he raakeal If he couid do this mten daya, what should we have had if you had given him forty? You show him a mei'cy in not extending tbe tirae for answer. 'In the appointment of General Grant ad interim, he acted under the act of Fe'bruary 13, 1795, and~ waa aubject to ita limitations. By the act of August?, 1789, creating the Department of War, (lat Statutes'at Large, page 49), "in case of any vacancy" no provision ia made for any ap pointment of an acting or an ad interim, Secretary. In that case the recorda and papera are to be tumed over for safe keeping to the custody of the chief clerk. This appa rent oraiBsion to provide for an executive emergency was attempted to be remedied by Congress by the aet of May 8, 1792, (lat Statutes, 281), which provides "that in case of death, abaence from the seat of govemment, or sickness of .the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, or of the Secretary of the War Departraent, or of any officer of either or the said departments whoae appointment is not in the head thereof, whereby they cannot perform the du tiea of their re^ective offices, it shall be lawful for tbo President ofthe Uuited States, in caae he abaU think it ne- cessaty, to authorize any peradn or persons, at bis diecre- tion, to perform the duties of the said respective offices until a succcsBor be appointed, or untU sucb abBnnce or ina biUty by sickness shall cease.'' *' It will be observed that this act provides for vacancies by death, absence, or sickness only, whereby the head of a de partment or any oificer in it cannot perfonn his duty, but makes no provision for vacancy by removal. Two difiiculties were found in that provision of law; first, that it provided only for certain enumerated vacan ciea ; and also, it authorizes the President to make an act ing appointraent of any person for any length of time. To meet theee difficulties the act of 13th of B'ebruary 1795, was pasaed, (let Stat at Large, 415), T^^liich provides "in caae of vacancy, whereby the Secretaries or any officer in any of the departmentfrcannot perform the dutiea of hia office, the President may appoint any person to perform the duties for a period not exceeding six months," Thua the law stood as to acting appointments in aU of the departments (except the Navy and Interior, which had no provision for any person to act in place of the Secre tarv), untu the 19th of February, 1863, when, by the second • section of an act approved at that date (12th Stat., 646), it was "provided that no person acting or aaauming to s.ct as a civil, military or naval offlcer ahall have any money iftiid to him as salary in any office which is not authorized by some previously existing law. The stato of the law upon this subject at that point of time is thus:— In case of death, ¦absence or Bicknesfl, or of any vacancy wliereby a Secre tary orot*er officer of the State, War or Treasury Depart ment could n'ot perform the duties of the office, any peraon could be authorized by the President to pert'orm t'aoae duties for the space of aix months. For the Departments of the Interior and the Navy pro- yiaion had been made for the appointment of an asBistant ' secretary, hut no provision in case of vacancy in his office, and a reatriction put upon any officera acting when nqt awthorized by law, from receiving auy salary whatever, ' To meet those omissions, and to meet the case of' resig nation of any officer of an executive department, and also tomeetwhatwas found to he a defect in allowing the President tO appoint any peraon to thoae high officea for the space of six mouths, whether such peraon had any acquaintance with the duties of the department or not, an act waa passed February 20, 1863, (12 Stat, p. 656,) which provides that in case of the death, rcf;ignation, .absence from the seat of government or sickness of the head of an executive departraent of the government, or of any officer of either of the said departments whose appointment ia not in the head thereof, wfiereby they cannot perform the dutiea of their respective offlces, it shall be lawful for the President of the United Statea, in cose he ahaU think it necessary, to authorize the head_ of any other executive depai'tment or other officer in either of said departments whose appointment is vested in the President, at hia dis* 54 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. cretioi^o perform the duties of the aaid respective offices untu a successor be appointed, or until BUcfa absence or in ability ahall cease. Therefore, in caae bf the death, re- Bignation, sickneaa, or abaence of ahead of an executive departraent, whereby tbe incumbent could not perforra the dutiea of hia office, the President might authorize the head of another executive department to perform' the dutiea of the vacant office, and in case of like disabilty of any officer of •an executive department other than the head, the President might authorize an officer of the same department lo perform hia dutiea for the space of aix months. It is remarkable that in all the&e atatutee. from 1789 down, no.prdviaion ia made for the case of a removal, or that anybody -iB empowered to act for the removed officer, the chief clerk being empowered to take charge of the books and papers only. , , Does not thia series of acts conclusively demonstrate a legislative construction of the Constitution that there could be no reraoval ofthe chief of an executive depart ment by the act of the President save by the nom_infttion and appointment of hia Bucccssor, if the Senate were in BCBsion, ora qualified appointment till the end of the next seaaion, if the vacancy happened or waa made in a receas? Let US now applv thia state of the law to the appoint ment of Major-(jeneral Thpraaa Secretary of War ad in terim, by Executive order. Mr. Stanton had neither died nor resigned, was not Bick nor absent If he had been, under the act of March 3, 1863, which repeals aU inconsist ent acts, the President was authorized only to appoint the head of another executive department to fill his place arf interim,. Such wks not General Thomae. He was simply an officer of the army, the head of a bureau or department of the War Department, and not eligible under the law to be appointed ; ao that his appointment was an illegal and void act. There have heen two cases of ad interim, appbintments which illustrate and confirra this position ; the one waa the appointraent of Lieutenant-General Scott Secretary of ', War ad interim, and the other the appointment of GTene- ral Grant ad interim upon the. suspension of Mr. Stanton, in August last "The appointment of General Scott was l^al, because that waa done before the restraining actof March 2, 1863, which requirea the ^etaU of the head of another dopart- nient to act ad interim. The appointment of (General Grant to take the place of Mr. Stanton during hia 8UH)enBion would have been illegal under the acta I have cited he being an officer of tbe army and not the head of a department, if it had not been au thorized by the aecond section of the Tenure of Office act, which providcB that in case of suspension, and" no other. the President may designate "aome suitable person to perforra teraporarily the dutiea of such office until the next meeting of the Senate." JJow, General Grant was such ' "suitable peusop," and waa properly enough appointed under that provision. -This answers one ground of. the defense which ia taken by the President that he did not suspend Mr. Stanton under the Tenure of Office act, but by hia general power of suspension and reraoval of an officer. If the President did not suspend Stanton under the Tenure of Oifice act, be cause he deemed it unconstitutional and void, then there waa no law authorizing him to appoint General Grant, and that appointment was unauthorized by law, and a vio lation of his oath of office. JBut the Tenureof Civil Offiee biU by its expresa terma fprbida any employment, authorization or appointment of any person in civil office, where the appointment is b.v and with the advice and couBeht of the Senate, while tbe Sen ate fe in aession. If this act is conatitutional, i. e., if it is not BO far in conflict withthepararaount law of the land as to be inoperative and void, then theremoval of Mr. Stan ton and the appointment of General Thpmas are bOtb in •dli'ect violation of it, and are declared by it td be high ihis- demeanora. , The inteht with which the President haa done this is not doubtful, nor are we obliged to rely upon tho principle of law that a man must be held to intend the legal conse quences of all his acta. , The President adralta that he intended to set aside the Tfenure of Office act, and thus contravene the Constitu tion, if that law waa unconBtitutional. ^ Having aho wn that the President wilfuHyvioIate^ an actof Congress, withOi;t justification, both inthe removal of Stanton and the appointment of Thoraas, for the pur pose of obtaining wrongfully the poesession of the War Offlce by force, ii need be, and certainly by tii,reats and intimidations, for tbe purpose of controlling ita appropria tions through its od interim chief, who shall say, that Ahdrew Johnson is not guilty of the high crimes and mis-^ demeanors charged againat hira in the first eight articlea r* The respondent makea answer to ,thia view that the President, believing thia Civil Tenure law to be uncon stitutional, had a xight to violate it for the purpose of bringing the matter before the Supreme Court tor its ad judication. ' / - We are obUged,' in limine, to aak the attention of the Se nate to this consideration^ that they may take it with thera as our case goes forward. ¦ vye claim that the question of the constitutionality fo any law of Congress i^, upon this trial, a totally irrelevant one ; becauae aU the power or right in the President to judge npon any auppoaed conflict Of an act of CongresB with the paramount law of the Constitution is exhausted when he has examined a biU sent him'and returned it with his objections. If then passed over his veto it be comes as valid as if in fact signed ^ him. Xhe Constitution haa provided three methoda, aU equally potent, by which a biU brought into either House may become a law :— , • . , j, Iirat. Bv passage hy vote of both Houses, In due form, with die President's signature ; Second. By passage by vote of bothHouaes, in due form, and the PreBident'a neglect to return it within ten daySi with hia objections ; Third. ,By passage by vote of both Housea, in due form, a veto tay the President, a recouBideration by both Housesv and a pasaage by a two-thirds vote. The Constitution substitutes thia reconaideration- and passage as an equivalent to the President'a aignature. AfEqrthathe and all other officera muat execute the law* whether in fact conatitutional or not, " For the President to refuse to execute a law duly passed because he thought it unconatitutionali after he had vetoed it for that reason, would, in effect, be for him to execute his veto, and leave the laW unexecuted. It may be &aid he may do thie at his peril. True; but that peril ia to be impeached for violating his oath of office^ as is now being done. If, indeed, laWs duly paaaed by Congreaa affecting genet rally the welfare of any conaiderable portion of the people had been commonly, or as a usage declared by the Su^ preme Court unconBtitutional, and therefore inoperative, - there might aeem to be some palliation, if not justificdh tion, to the Executive to refuse to execute a law in order. to have its constiti^tion ality tested by the Supreme Coiirfe. '• It is possible to conceive of ao flagrant a caae of unconatt tutionality aa to be auch shadow of justification to the Executive, provided at the aarae time one Conceives an equally flagrant case of stupidity, ignorance and imbe- , cilitv, or worse, in the Repreaentatives'^df the people and ' in the Senate of the United States ; but both conceptions are bo rarely possible and abaurd aa not to furniah a ground of governmental action. , ¦ .. ¦ 'How stands the faet? Haa the Supreme Court so .ft«- quently declared the laws of Congress in conflict with the .Constitution as to afford the Preeident just gi-ound for beUef, or hope even, that tbe court will do soin a given in stance? I think I may safely asaert, as a legal fact, that eince the first decision of the Supreme Court till the day .of this arraignment no law parsed by Congrees, affecting the feneral welfare, has 'ever, bythe judgmentof tbat coUrt een set aside or held, for nftugbt because of nnconstita- tionality as the ground-work of its decision. , In three cases only haa the judgment of that court been ' influenced by the auppoaed conflict between the law and the Constitution, and they were cases affecting the court itself and its own duties, and where the law seemed to in terfere with its own prerogatives, ' Touching privileges and prerogatives have been the ship- wreck of many a wholesome law. It is the sore spot, the senfitive nerve of all tribunals, pariiamentary or judicial, ' The first case queationing the validity of a law of Con gress ia Hayburn's (2 DaUas, 409), where the court decided ' upon the unconstitutionality df the act of March 23,1792, ' Statutes at Largei vol. 1, p. 244, which conferred upon the" court the power to decide upon and grant certificates of^ invalid pensions. The court held that such power could not be conferred upon the court as ah original juriediction, the court receiving all ita original Jurisdiction frora the"' provisions of the Conatitution, This deciaion would be ' nearly unintelligible were it not explained in a note to the \ case in United btates vs. Ferreira (13 Howard, p. 62)i re*. porting United Slates vs. Todd, decided February 17, 1794. We learn, however, from both eases, the cause of this nninteUigibUity of the decision in Hayburn's case. When the same question came up at the Circuit Court ih New York, the judges being of opinion that the law could not be executed by them aa judges, because it was nnconstiti tional^ yet determined to obey it until the case could be adjudicated by the whole court. They therefore, not to violate the law, did execute it as commiseioners untiltt was repealed, which wa« done the next vear. The judges on the circuit in Pennsylvania all united in a letter to the Executive, most hurable apologiaing, with great regret, that their convictions of duty did not permit them to execute tlie law aecordiug to its terms, and took' special care that tins letter should accompany iieir deci. Bion, ao that they raight not be misunderstood. Both examples it "would have been well for tbia respon dent to have foUowed before he undertook to set himaelf to violate an act of CongTOBB.* The next case where the court ' decided upon any coiK flict between tbe Conatitution and the law is Gordon vs, United Statea, tried in April, 1865, seventy-one years aftafr ward, two Justices dissenting, without any opinion beI?K '¦ delivered by the court The court here dismisaed an appeal from the Court of Claims, alleging that, under the Constitution, no appellate jurisdiction could be exerciaed over the Court of OlaimB uhder an act of Congress which gave revisory power to the Secretary of the Treasury over a .decision of the Court of Claims. This decision is httle satisfactory, as it is wholly without argument or authority cited. The next case ia ex parte Garland (4 WaUace, 333), known as the Attorney's Oath case, where the court do- ciaed that an attorney was not an officeV of the United btatea, and, therefore, might practice before that court Without taking the test oath. < The reasoning of the conrt inthat case would throw doubt on the constitutionality Pf the law of Cong?esa, but> - the decision ofthe invalidity of the law was not necessary to the decision ofthe case, which did not command a una* nimjty in the court, as it certainly did not the assent of the Bar. Yet in this caae It will be observed that the court ma^e a rule requiring the oath to be administered to the attor- IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 55 neys in obedience ofthe law until it came betore them m a ¦cause duly brought up for deciaion; The Suprerae Court .. obeyed the law up to the time it was adt aside. They did not violate it to make a test case. jflere is another exaraple to thia respondent as to his duty in the case, which he Will wish he had followed, J may venture to say, when he hears the judgment of the» Senate upon the impeachment now pending^ There ave several otlier caaea wherein the validity of acta of Congreaa have been diacuased before the Supreme Court, but none where the decision has turned ou that point In Marbury vs. Madlaon <1 Cranch, 137),. Chief Jnetice Marahall dismiased the caae for want of jurisdiction, took opportunitv to deliver a ebiding opinion againat the ad- miniatration of Jefferaon before ne did so. In the Dred Scot case, so faraiUar to the public, the court decided it had no juriadiction, but gavo the government and the people a lecture on their political duties. In tho case of Fisher vb. Blight (2 Cranch, 358), the con- Btitutionality of a law waa very much discuaaed, but was held valid by the decision of the court. In United States vs, Coomba (12 Petera, 72), although the power to declare a law of Congreas in contUct with the Con stitution was claimed in the opinion of the court argit^ endo, yet tbe law itself was auatained. The caae of Pollard va. Hagan (3 Howard, 212), and the, two caaea, Goodtitle va. Kibbe (9 Howard, '271), Hallett va, Beebe (13 Howard, 25), growing out of the same con troversy, have been thought to irapugu the validity of two private acta of CongrcEs, hut a careful exaraination ' will ahow that it waa the operation, and not the vaUdity of the acts which came in question and made the basis of the decision. Thus it may he seen that the Supreme Court; in three in stancea only, have apparently, by ita decision, impugned the validity of an act of Congress because of a conflict with tlie Constitution, and in each case a question of the righta ¦and prerogatives of the court or its officers haa heen in controversy. The caaea where the constitutionality of an act of Con gress haa been doubted in the obiter dicta of the court but were not the basis of decision, are open to other criti cisms. In Marbury va. Madison, Chief Jhstice Marshall had just been serving aa Secretary of State, in an opposing admin istration to the one whoao acts he was trying to overturn AS Chief Justice. , In the Dred Scott caae. Chief Justice Taney— aelected by General Jackaon to remove the depoaita. becauae hie bitter partiaanship would carry hira through where Duane halted and was removed— deUvered the opinion of the court, whoae obiter diata.fAnued the flame of diaaenBion which • led to the civil war through which the people have just passed, and againat that opinion the judgmentof the couutrv has long been recorded. When ex parte Garland was decided, the country was juat emerging from a conflict of arms, the passions and ex citement of which had found their way upon the bench, andsomeof the judgea, just coming frora othwaervice of the governraent and from the bar, brought with thera opi nions. But I forbear: I am treading on dangeroua ground. Time haa not yet laid its softening and correcting hand long enough itpon thia decision to aUow me lurther to comment upon it in this presence. . Mr. President and Senators, can it be aaid that the pos- . rible doubts thrown on three or four acts of Congress, aa to their constitutionality, during a judicial experience of Eeventy-five.yeara— hardly oneto a generation— is a suffi cient warrant to the Preeident of the United States to set aside and violate any act of Congress whatever, upon the plea that he believed the Suprerae Court would hold it un constitutional when a case involving the question should come before it, and especially one ranch discussed on ita ' paaaage, to which the whole mind of the country was turned during the progeaa of the discussion^ upon which hs had argued with all hispower hiRconatitutionalobjectiona, and which, after careful reconsiderations bad been paased over hia veto. . „ ,. , Indeed, wiU you hear an argument aa a Senate of the United States, a raajority, of whom voted for that very bill, upon its constitutionality in the trial of an executive^offl- cer forwilfuUy violating it before it had been doubted by any court? . Bearing upon this queation, however, it raay he said thatthe Preaidentremovcd Mr. Stanton for the very pur pose of testing the C9n.?ti tutionality of this law hemre the courts, and the question ia asked, will you condemn him as for a crime for 80 doing? If this plea were a true one, it ought not to avail ; but it ia tC aubterf uge. We shall show you that he has taken no step to submit the question to any court, although nxore than a year has elapsed since the passage ot the act. j^ On the contrary, tho President haa recognized it?- vali dity and acted upon it in every department of the Kovern- ¦meut, save in the War Department, ¦ and there except in regard to the head thereof solely. We ahall show you he long ago caused all the forms ot commissions and offlcial bonds of aU the civU officers of the government to be al tered to conform to its requirement Indeed, the fact will not be denied— nay, in the very caae of Mr, Stanton, he Buspended hira under its provisions, and asked this very gaaate, before whom he is now being tried for iti viola tion, to pass upon the sufficiency of nia reasons for acting nnder it in ao doing according to its term? ; yet, rendered reckless and raad by the patience of Congress under his uaurpation of otber powera, and hia disregard of other lawa, he boldly avowa-in hia letter to the General of the Army that he intenda to diaregardita proviaiona, and sum mons the comraander of the troopa of this departraent to seduce him from his duty so as to be able to command, in violation of another act of Cougress, sufficient military power to enforce hia unwarranted decrees. The President knew, or ought to have known ; hia of ficial adviser, who now appears aa hia counael, could, and did tell him, doubtleas, that he alone, aa Attorney-General, could file an inforraation in the nature of a quo warranto to deterraine this queation ofthe validity of the law. Mr. Stanton, if ejected from offlce, was without remedy. because a aeries of dociaiona haa settled the law' to' be that an ejected officer cannot reinstate himself, either by g«o warranto, mandaynus, or other appropriate remedy inthe courtBi If the President had reaUy deaired solely to teat the con- Btitutionality of the law or his legal right to remove Mr. Stanton, instead of hia defiant raessage to the Senate on the 21at of February, inforraing them of the removal, but not Biiggosting thia purpose which ia thus shown to be an afterthought, he would have said in aubatance:— "Gentle men of the Senate, in order to test the conatitu tion ali tv of the law entitled 'An act regulating the tenureof certain civil offices,' which I verily believe to be unconstitutional and void, I have issued an order of removal of F,. M, Stan ton from the office df Secretary of the Departraent of War, I felt myself constrained to make this removal leat Mr. Stanton should answerthe information in the nature of a QUO loarranto, whi^^h I intend the Attomey-General ahall fileat anearly day,,by saying that he holds the office of Secretary of War by l*ie appointment and authority of Mr. Lincoln,whichhaBn6verbeenrevoked. Anxious tbat there ahall be no collision or disagreement between the several departments of the governmont andthe Executive, I lay before the Senate this message, that the reasons for ray action, as well as the action itself, for the purpoae indica ted, may meet vour concurrence." Had the Senate received auch a message,, the represen-, tatives of the people raight never have deemed it neCOBaary to impeach the President for such an act to insure the safety of the country, even if they ^ad denied the accu racy of hia legal position. On the contrary, he issued a letter of removal, perem- tory in form, intended to be so in effect, ordering an officer ofthe army, Lorenzo Thomaa, to take posseasion of the offlce and eject tho incurabent. which he clairaed he would - do by force, even at the riak of inaugurating inaui-rectjon, civil commotion and war. Whatever raay be tfie decision of the legal question in volved when the case coraes before the final judicial tribu nal, who shall say that such conduct of the Executive, under the circumstances, and in the light ofthe history of current events and his concoraitant action, is not in An drew Johnson a high crime and raiademcanor? Imagine, if it were possible, the conaequence of a decision bvthe Senate in the negative— a verdict of not guUty upon this propoaition. A law is deliberately passed with all the form of legisla tive procedure ; is presented to tho Preaident for his signa ture; is returned by him to Congress with his objectiPns; is thereupon reconsidered, and by a yea, and nay vote ot three-quarters of the representatives of the people iu the popular branch, aud three-fourths of the Senators repre- BCntins the States iu the higher branch, ia passed again, notwithstanding the veto; is acquiesced in by the Presi dent— by all departments of the government conforming thereto for quite a year ,_ no court having doubted ita va Udity. Now ita provisiona are wilfully and . deaignedly violated by the Preaident with intent to usurp to himself the very powera which the law was deaittned to limit, for the purpose' of displacing a meritorious officer whom the Senate juat before had determined ought not and ahould .not be removed ; for which high-handed act the Preaident i^mpeached inthe name of all the people of the United Statea, by three-fourtha of tho Houae of RoBresentativeB, aud presented at the bar of the Senate, and hy the sarae senate that, passed the law; nay, more,' by the very Senatora who, when the proceeding carae to their know ledge, after a re-deli be rati on of inany hours, Boleranly de clared the act unlawful and in violation of the Constitu tion ; yet that act of usurpation ia declared not to be a high misdemeanor iu office by their aoieran verdict of not guilty unon their oatha. Would not sucb a j.udgraent he a conacioua self-abnega tion of the intelligent capacity of the representatives of the people iu Congreaa- asserabled to frame laws for their guidance in accordance with the principles and terma of their Constitutioni and frairre of their governraent? ' Would it ndt be a notification— an invitation, rather— Btantling to all time, to any bold, bad, aspiring man td seize'the liberties of the people, which they had ehown thoraeelvpa incapable of maintaining or defending, and playing the role of a C^aar or Napoleon here, to establiah a deapotiara, while this, the last and greatest experiment of freedom aud equalitv of right iu the people, foUowing the loug Hue of buried republica, aink to ita tomb under the blows of usurped power from which free representa tive government ahall arise fo the Ught of a morn of resur rection never more— never raore, forever. ^ Article ninth chargea that Major-General Emory, being in command of tho Military Department of Washington, the Prfesident called hira before hira and instructed him that tho act of March 3, 1867. which provides that aU ordera from the President shall be issued through the General of thoArrav, waa unconstitutional and inconsistent with hig coramiss'ion, with intent to induce General Eraory to take orders directly from hiraself and thua binder tbe execution of the Civil Tenure aot, and to prevent Mr. Stanton from holding his dffice of Secretary of War. If the tranaaction set forth in this article stood alone, we 56 ' IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON, might weh admit that doubts might ariae as to the suffi ciency of the proof. But the surroundinga are ad pointed and significant aa to leave no doubt in the mind of an ira-. partial raan aa to the interests and purpoaea of the Presi dent. No one would aay that the Preaident might not properly send to ,the commander of this department to make inquiry ae to the disposition of his ' forcea, but the queation ia with what intent and purpoae did the Preaident send for General Emory at the time he did? Time here is an iniportant element Of the act. Congress had passed an act' m March, 1867, restraining the- Presi dent from issuing railitary orders save through the General of the Array. The President bad protested against that act On the 12tfi of August he had atterapted to get noa- aession of the War Office by the removal oi the incumbent, but could only do ao by appointing tbe General oijthe Army thereto. Failing in his atterapt to get full posaeBMOn of tbe office, through the Senate, he had deterrained, as he . admits, to reqiove Stanton at all hazravds, and endeavored' to prevail on the General to aid hira in ao doing. He de clines. For that the respondent quarrels- with hira, de- nouncea him in the newspapers, and accuses hira of bad faith and" untruthfulness. Thereupon, asserting hia pre- rogatives as Coraraander-in-Chief, he createa a new raili tary Department of the Atlantic, He attempts to bribe Lieutenant-General Shennan to take command of it by Srdraotion to the rank of General by brevet, trusting that ia military services would corapel the Senate to confirm ham.. fi • IfthereHpondentcanget a general by brevet appointed, he can then, by simple order, put him on duty according to his brevet rank, and thus have a general of the army ih' command at Washington, through whora he can trans mit his ordera and comply with the act which he did not dare tranegress, as he had approved it, and get rid of the hated General Grant. Sherraan spurned the" bribe. The respondent, not discouraged, appointed Major-General George H. Thomas to the same brevet rank, but Thomas declined. What stimulatedthe ardor of the President jnst at that time, ^Imost three yeara after the y^ax closed, but just after the Senate had reinstated Stanton, to reward military service hy the appointraent of g&neral'a, by brevet? Why did his zeal of pi'omotion take that form and no othtr? There were many other meritorious officera dt_ lower rank desirous of promotion. The purpoae is evident to every thinking mind. He had ddtdrrained to set aside Grant with whom he had xiuarreled, either hy force or fraud, either in conformity with or in spite of the 'act of Con gress, and control the military power of _the country. On the 1st of February (formali these eventa .oluater nearly about the'aame point of tirae), lie appoints Lorenzo Tho maa Secretary or War, and orders Stanton out ofthe office ; Stanton refuaea to go \ Thomaa is about the etreets declar ing that he will put hira out by force— "kick him-out"— he haa caught his raaater'a word. On tbe evening of the Slst a resolution looking to im peachment ia offered in the Honae. The President, on the morning of the 22d, "aa eariy as practicable," is seized with a auaden desire to know now many troops there wPre in Washington.; What for, juat then? Waa that all he wanted to know? If so, his Adju tant-General could have given hira the official morning re port, which would have snowh the condition and, atation of every man. But that was not all. He directs the com mander of the departraent to come as early as practicable. Why tbis haste to learn the nuraber of troops? Observe, this order does not go throUgh Gendral Grant, as by law it ought to have done. General Emory, not knowing what ia wanted, of course obdyed the order as soon ar possible. The President asked him if he remembered the conversa tion which he had with hira when he first took coramand of the departraent, as to the atrength of the garriaoif of Washingtonand the general disposition of , the, troops in department* Emory repUed that "he did distinctly;" that waa last September. Then, after explaining to him fully as to all the changes, the PreMdent asked for recent changes of troopa. Eraory denied they couldhave been made without tbe ordt^' going through him?and then.'with aoldierly frankness, (aa he evi dentiy suapected what the President was after), said by law ho order conld Porae to hira save through the General of the Arruyi and thathad been approved by the President , and promulgated ih general order, No. 17. The President • wiahed to See it It waa produced. General Eraory saya, "Mr. President, I will take it as a great favor if you will permitane to call rpur attention to this order or act." Whya favor to Tlmory? Because he feared that he waa - to be called ivpon by the President to do something in con travention of that law. The Preeident read it and aaid :— "Thia ia not in accordance with the Constitution of the United Statea, which makes rae Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, or v/ith the language of vour commis sion." Emory then said:— "Tbat ia not a matter for the officers to determine. There was the order sent to ua ap proved by him, and we were all governed by that order." He said. 'Am I to underatand, then, that the Preaident of thfi United States cannot give an order, but through General Grant?" General "Eraory then ihade the Presi dent, a short speech, telling hira that the officers of the , army had been consulting lawyera on the subject, Keyerdy Johnson and Robert J. YValkeij and were advised they were hound to obey that order. Said he, , " I think it right toteU you the army are a unit on this subject*' After a short pause, "seeing there was nothing raore to say," -General Eraory left What made all the officera conault lawyers about obeying a law of thfe United States ? What influence had been at work with them? The course of the President. Tn hia mesaage to Congress», in December, he had declared that the time might corae when hewould resist a law of Congress by force. How could General Emory teU that in the judgment of the Presidentthattime had not corae, and hence W3S anxioua to .assure the President that he couM not oppose the law, >, In his answer to the first article he asserts that he bad fully corae to the concluaion to remove Mr. Stanton at all events, notwithstanding the law and the action of the Senafte; in other worda, he intended to make, and did make, expcuti've resistance ¦ to thelaw dnly enacted. The consequence of siich resistance he haa told ua in his mes aage :— Whpre an aet has .been passed according to the forms of the Constitntion by the supreme legislative authority, and - ia regularly enrolled among thepiiblic atatutea of the coun try. Executive resiatahce to it especially in tiraes of ' high party excitement, would be likelyto produce violent coUi- aion between the respective adherenta of the two branchea of the government. Thia would be aimply civil war, ana civil war raust be resorted to only as the~ laat remedy for the-worat evila. ¦ ^ - *» * « « I* w » It ia true thai casea may occur in which the Executive'' would be corapelled to .stand on ita rights, and maintain " them, regardless of aU consequences. »V«', ,* » «» «^» * "» He adihita, in aubsfadoe, that ''he told Eiiibfy that the law waa wholly unconstitutional, ahd, in effect, took away all his power aa Corara'ander-in-Ohief. Waa it not ju6t such a law as he had declared be would resist? Do you not believe tbat if General Emory hadyieldedia the least to his BuggestionB the President would have offered him pro raotion to bind him to his purposes, aB he did Sherman and Thomas? , ¦ Pray remeraber that this is not the case of one gentleraan conversing withanother. on mooted questions of 4aw. but it i,a the President, the Coramander-in-Cbief, "the fountain of all honor and source of all power" in the eye ot a railiL' tary officer, teaching that officer to disobey a law which. he himself haa deterrained ia void, with the power to pro mote the offlcer if he finds him air.apt pupil. '' la it not a high misderaeanor for the President to assume to instruct the officers ' of tbe army thatthe laws df Cour gresa are not to be obeyed? ¦ Article ten allegqa that, intending-, to aet aside the right ful authority and powera of Congress, and to bring into disgrace and contempt the Cdn^-eaa of the United States,' and to destroy confidence in and to excite odium against Congress and ita laws, he, Andrew Johnson, Preaident of the United States, made divers speeches set out therein^, . whereby he brought theoffice of President hito contempt ridicule, and disgrace. "^ To sustain theae charges there will be put in evidence the ahort-hand notes of the reporters in each instance who took these apeeches, or examined the sworn copies thereof, and in one inatance where the speech waB examined and - corrected by the private secretary of the Preaident himself. To the chargea of thia article tbe reapondent answers . tbat a convention of delegates (whora he does not aay) aat in Philadelphia for certain political purposes men tioned, and appointed a coraraittee to wait upon the re apondent as, President ;of the United States; tbat they were received, and their Chaicman, the Hon. Keverdy Johnapn, then and iioW a Senator of the United Statea, addressed the respondent in a speech, a copy of which the the leapondent believes ip'from a aubstantially correct re port is madea part of the anawer; that the respondent raade a reply; to the addreas df the coramittee. While, however, he givea ua inhia answer a copy of theapeech made to, bira by Ma*. Revprdy Johnaon, taken from a newspaper,, he wholly orPits to give ua an authorized ver- ¦ aion of hia own speech, about which he may be auppoaed to know quite as rauoh, and thus saved us sorae testiraony. He does, not admit that the extracta frora his speech in the articles are correct, nor does he deuy that they are so? In regard to the speech at Cleveland, he again does not, admit that the" extracts correctly or juatly present hia^ apeech; but again he does not deny that it does ao far as the sarae ia aet out Aa to the apeech at St, Louis, he does not deny that he made it; says only tbat he,doea not admit it and reqmirca, in each case, that the whole speech shall be proved,. In that^Ibegieave to aaaure him and the Senate, his wishes ahall be gratified in their fuUest fraction. The Senate shall 'see the performance, ao far aa ia in our powerto photograph the scene by evidence^ on all those occa8ion6,i and shall hear.everymateral word that hesftid, ¦ '' His defense, however, to the article \a that "he felt him self iu duty bound to expreas opiniona of and concerning the public character, conduct' "viewa, purposes, motivea and tendencies of all m^n engaged in the public service, as weUm Congreaa as otherwise," "and that for anything he may have said on either of theae occaaions he is justffied under thd conatitutional right of freedom of opinion and freedom of apeech, and ia not aubject to greater inqiiiai'- tion,'irapeachment or inpulpation in any manner or form whatsover," He, deniea, however, that by reason of any raatter in said articleor ita specification aUegedhe haa aaid or done anything indecent or unbecoraing in tho Chief Magis^ate oi the United States, or tending tp bring his high offlce into conterapt, ridicule or diagi-ace. * The isaue, then, finaUy, is thia:— That thoae utcerancea of his, in the manner and form in which they are alleged to have been made, and under the circumstanees and at the time they were made, are decent and becoming the President or tbe United Statea, and do not tend to bring the office Into ridicule and disgrace. IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 57 fhi We accept the issues. They are two :— First. That he has the right to aay what he did of Con- 'OBB in the' exercise of freedom of speech ; and, second, __iat what he did say in those speeches waa a highly |gen- tlemanlike and proper perforraance in a citizen, and atiU more becoraing in a Preaident of £he,United States, Let us firet consider tho graver matter of the aaBertion of the right to cast contumely upon Congreaa ; to denounce Itaa a "body hanging on the verge of the government;" "pretending to be a Congreaa when in fact it waa not a CTongresa;" "a Congress pretending to be for the Union, when its every atep and act tended to perpetuate dis- nnion, and make a disruption of the States inevitable;" "a Congreaa in a' minority aaauming to exercise a power which, if aUowed to be consummated,' would reault in despotism and monarchy itself ;" "a Congress which had done evervtbing to prevent the union of the States;" "a Congreaa factious and domineering ;" "a Radical Congrosa which gave origin to another rebellion ;" "a Congreaa upon whoae akirta was every drop of blood that was shed in the New DrleauB riota." ^ _ , , , You will flnd theae denunciations had a deeper meaning than mere expressions of opinion. It raay be taken as au oxiora in the aff'airs of nationa that no uaurper has ever seized upon the legislature of hia country until be hag familiarized the people with the posaibility of ao doing by vituperation and decrying it. Denunciatory attacks upon the legialature have alwaya preceded; slanderous abuse of the individuals coraposing it haye always accom panied a seizure by a despot of the legislative powdr of a country. Two memorable examples in modem hiatory "wUl spring to the recollection of . every man. Before CromweU drove out by the bayonet the Parliament of England, he and his nartiaaus had denounced it, derided it, decried it and de famed it, and thus brought it into ridicule and conterapt. He viUfied it with tbe same name which it ia a significant ' fact the partisans of Johnaon, by a concerted cry, appUed to the Congress of the United States when he commenced his memorable pilgrimage and cruaa^e againat it. ItiB a etiUmore aignificant fact that|the Juatification made by CrdmweU and by Johnaon for setting aaide the authority of Parliaraent and Congress, feapoctively, was preciaely tbe aame, to wit t that they were elected by part of the people only, _ when Cromwell, by his Boldiera, finally entered the hall of Parliament to disperae ita raerabers, he attempted to cover the enormity of hia uaurpation by denouncing thia man personally aa a Ubertine, that aa a drunkard, another as the betrayer of the libertiea of the people. Johnaon started out on precisely the aame coursej but forgetting the parsJlel too early he proclaims thfe patriot an aaaaasin. that statesman a traitor; threatena to hang that raan .whom the people delight to honor, and breathea out I "threatenings and alaiighter" againat this man whose ser- viceainthe cause of huraanfreedora has made hia name a houBehgidword wherever the language is epoken. There is, however, an appreciable difference between CromweU and Johnson, ana %here is a Uke ditterence in the results, accomplished by feach. When Bonaparte' extinguished the legislatu're of France, he waited until through his preaa and hia partisans, and by hia own denunciations, he brought ita authority into dis grace and.eonterapt; and when, finally, he drove the coun cU of the nation from their chamber, Uke CroiiiweU, he juatified himaelf hy personal abuae of the indiyiduals them selves aa they paased by him. That the attempt of Andrew Johnaon to overthrow Con greaa haa failed, is becauae of the want of abiUty and power, not of malignity aud wiU, We are too apt to overlook the danger which may come ,, from words :— "We are inclined to say tbat is only talk— wait tiU some act ia done, and then it w-iU be time to move. But words may be, and aometimes are, thinga— Uving, burning thinga that set a world on fire," As'a moat notable instance of the power of worda, look at theinception of the Reb.ellion through which we have just passed. For a quarterbf a century the nation took no, noticeof the talk of dfeunion and Seceaaion which was heard in Clongreaa and on the "stump" until in the South a' feneration was taught them by word, and the word aud- enly burst forth into terrible, awful war. Does any one doubt that if Jackaonjiad hanged CaUioun in 1832 for talking nullification and Seceaaion, which waa embryo treason, the cannon of South CaroUna against Fort Sumter ^oijld never been heard with all their fbarf ol and deadly- consequences? IJI ay, more; if the United States officers, Senators, ahd Representatives, had been impeached or dis qualified from office in 1832 for advocating Sedession on the "stump," as was done in 1862 by Congress, thei^ our sona ahd brothera, now dead in battle, or starved in pri son, had been alive and happy, and a peaceful' BOlutidhdf the question of slavery had been foiind. ," Does any one doubt that if the intentions of the reapond ent coiild have been carried out, and his denunciations had weakened the CongresB in the affectlouB of the people, so that thoae who had in the North syrapathized with the Rebellion could have elected auch a nunority even of the Ropreeentativea to Congreaa aSj t(^6ther with those sent up from the governments organized by Johnson in the re bellious Statea, tbey should have forraed a majority of both or either House of Congress, that the President . would have recognized auch bpdy as the le^tim^te Con greaa, and attempted to carry out ita decrees by tb^'aid of tbe army and navy and the Treasury of the United States, ovpr which he now claims auch unheard-of and illimitable powers, and thua lighted the toreh of civil war? In aU earneatneaa, Senatora, I caU each one of you, upon hia conscience, to say whether he does not believe, by such preponderance of evidence drawn' from the acts of the re spondent since he has been in office, that if the people had not been, aathdyeverhave heen, trUe and loyal to their Congress and theraselves, such would 'not have been the result of theae uaurpationa of power in the Executive. Ia it, indeed, to bo aerioualy argued here that there is a constitutional rieht iu tbo President of the United States, who, during his olflcial life, can never lay aaide hia offlcial character to denounce, raaligu, abuae, ridicule and con- teran, openly and publicly, the Congreaa of the United States— a co-ordinate branch of the govemment. It cannot faU to be observed that the President (shall I dare to aay hia counael, or are they compeUed by the exi- geucieaof their defense.,) have deceived themaelves as to the gravamen of the charge in thia article? It does not raise the queation of freedora of speech, but of propriety and decency of apeech and conduct in ahigh officer of the govemment Andrew Johnson, the private citizen, aa I may reve rently hope and trust he soon will be, haa the full con atitutional right to think ^ and (Speak what he pleases : in the manner he pleases, and where ho pleaaea, provided always he docs not bring himaelf ¦within the purview of tbe comraoh law offenaea of being a comraon railer and brawler, or a coramon acold, which he may do (if a male person ia ever liable to corarait that crirae) ; but the dig nity of station, the proprieties of poaition, the courtesiea of office, ali of which are a part of the common law of the land, require the Preaident of the United States to observe that gravity of deportment that fitness of conduct, that appropriateness of demeanor, and those amenitiesof be havior which are a part of his high official functioua. He stands before the youth of the country the exeraplar of all that is of worth in arabition, and all that ia to be sought in aspiration; he atanda before the raen of the country as the grave magistrate who occupiea, if he does not fill, the place once occupied by Washington; nay, far higher and of greater consequence, he stands before the world as the representative of free institutiona, aa the type of a raan whom the auffragea of a free people' hate chosen as their chief He Bhould be the living evidence of how rauch better, higher, nobler, and nlbre in the image of God is the elected ruler of a free people than a hereditary monarch coming into power by the accident of birth ; and when he disappdinta all theae hopes and aU these expectationa, . and becomes the ribald, scurrilous blaspheiher, bandying epithetB and taunta with a jeering mpb, ahall he be heard to aay that auch conduct is not a high miaderaeanov in offlce? . Nay, that disappointing the hopes, causing the cheeks to burn with shame, exposing to the taunta and ridicule of every nation the good narae and farae ofthe choaen institutiona of thirty raillions of people, is it not the higheat poeaible crirae aud raisderaeanor in office? and under the circuraatancea, the gravaraen of these charges? The worda are not alleged to he either falae or defamatory, because it ia not within the power of any raan, however high his oflicial position, in eflect to slander the , citizens ofthe United States, in the ordinary aenae of that woi-d, 80 as to caU on Congress to answer aa to truth of the accnaation. We do not go in, therefore, to any queation of truth or falsity. We reat upon tbe scandal of the scene. We would aa aoon think, in the trial of an indictment againat a termagant aa a common scold, of summoning witneseeB to prove that what ahe said was not true. It is the noise and disturbance in the neighborhood that is ithe offenae, and not a question of the provocation or irritation which cauaea tbe outbreak. Atthe risk of being almoat offensive, but proteating that if 80 it is not my fault, but that of the person whoae acta I amdeacribiug, let rae but faintly picture to youtheacene at Cleveland and St. Louie. It fe evening ; the Preadent of the Fnited Statea on a journey to do homage at the tomb of an Uluatrious states man, accorapanied by the head of the Array and Navy and becretary of State, haa arrived in the great central city of the continent. He haa been welcqpied by the civic authoritiea. He has been eacorted by a procession of the benevolent charitable aocieties, and citizens and aoldiera to hiB hotel. He haa returned thanka in anawer to an addreas of the Mayor to the citizena who have received hira. The hpapitality of the city haa provided a banquet for him and his suite, when he la again expected to addreas the choaen Sueata of the city, #here aU thinga may be conducted in ecency and in order. While he waa resting, as one would have supposed he would have to do, from the fatigues of tho day, a noiay crowd of raen and boya, washed and unwashed, drunk and sober, black and white, aaaemble in the street, who make night bideoua by their bawling; quitting tbe drawing- room without the advice of his friends, the President of fhe United Statea rushea forth dn to the balcony df the hotel to address what proves to have heen a mob; and this he eallB in hia anawer a '*fit occasion on which he has held to the high duty of expresaing opinions of audedhceming the legislation of Congreaa- propoaed or corapleted, in re spect of ita wisdora, expediency, justice, worthiness, ob- jectSj purposes, and pubhc and pohtical motivea and ten- ObeerVe now, npon this fit oceaaion, like' in all reapects to that at Cleveland, when the President is called upon by the conatitutional requireraents of his office to explain '*the evidence, expediency, justice, wortbineaa. Objects, purpofeea and tendencies of the acta of Congreaa," What he savs and the raanner in which he aays it. Does-he apeak with the gravity of a MarahaU when expounding conatitutional law? I^oca he use the polished sentencea^^of a Wirt? Or, faiUng in these, which may be bla miafortune, does he, in plain homely worda of truth ahd Boberness, endeavor to 68 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. instruct the raen and youth before him in their duty to obey the latvsand to reverence their rulers, and to prize ' their inatitutipna of _gdvernment? Although he may have been raistaken iin the aptness ofthe occasion for .. such didactic inntructiong,, still good teaching ia never thrown away. He showa, however, by hia language, aa . he had shown at_ Cleveland, that he meant to adapt hira- aelt to the occasion. He had hardly opened his mouth, aa we sball show you. when some one in the crowd cried. How about our British aubjecta ?" Ihe Chief Executive, supported by hia Secretary of State, so that all the foreign relations and diplomatic aer- yice were fully represented, with a dignity that not even hi8 counsel can appreciate, and with an araenity which niust have delighted Downing street, answers :— "We will attend to John BuU after awhile, ao far as that is con cerned.*' The mob, ungrateful, receive this bit of exprea- sion of opinion upon tbe juatice, worthiness, objecta. pur poses and public and political motives and tendenciea ot our relations Avith the Kingdom of Great -Britain, ae they fell from thehonored Ups of the President of the United Statea. .with laughter, and the more unthinking, with cheers. Having thus disposed of our diplomatic relations with the first naval and commercial nation on earth, the Presi dent next proceeds to instruct in the manner aforesaid and for the purpoae aforeaaid to thia noiay mob, on the subject of the riota, upon which his answer saya, it ie the conatitutional duty of the Preaident to express opinion for the purposes aforesaid," A voice calls out "New Orleana! —go onl"^ After a graceful exordium, the Preaident ex- Sresaea hia high opinion that a massacre, wherein his par- oned and unpardoned Rebel associates and friends de liberately shot down and murdered unarraed Union men without provocation— even Horton, tho minister of the hying God, as his hands were raiaed to the Prince of Peace, praying, in the language of the great martyr:— "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!'» —waa the result of the laws passed by the legislative de partraent of your government in the words foUowing, that IS to say— "If you wiU take up the riot at New Orleana, and trace it hack to ita source, or to its iraraediate cause, you will find out- who was responaible for the bldod that waa shed there. "If ydu take up the riot at New Orleans, and take it back to the Kadical Congreaa-.*' , . Thfe, as we might expect, was received by the mob, com posed, doubtleas, in large part of unrepentant Rebels, with great cheering, and cries of "Bully!" It waa "bully" for them to learn, on the authoritv of the President of the United States, that tbey might ahoot down Union men and patriots and lay the sin of the raurder upon tfie Congreaa of tho United States! And thia was another bit of opinion, . which the counsel aay it was the high duty of the Presi dent to exprea.^ upon the justice, the worthiness, objects, , "purposes and public political , raotivea and tendenceiea of the legislation of your Congress." After aorae further de bate with the mob aome one, it aeema, had called "Traitor,'* The Presidout of the United Statea. on thia fitting, con stitutional occasion, iraraediately took this aa peraonal, andreplies to it:— "Now, my countrymen, it iBveryea8.y '0 indulge in epithets ; it ia very easy to call a man a JudaB, and cry out traitor ; biit when he ia called upon to give argumenta and facta, he ia very often found wanting.". What were the "facts that were found wanting," which, In the mind of the President, prevented him from being a Judaa Iscariot? He shall state the wanting facts inhia own language on thfe occasion, when he is exercising hia high constitutional prerogative, , "Judaa Iscariot! Judasi There was a Judas once; dne ofthe twelve Apostles. Oh! yea; the' twelve Apo'atlea hada€Jhrist. (A voice, 'anda Mo^ea too;' great laugh ter.) . The twelve Apoatles had a Clirist; and he never could;hav6 had a Judas unless ho. had had the twelye Apoailes. If I have played the Judaa, who has beeh my 'Chriat that I have played the Judds writh? WasitThad. Stevens?__ Wal it WendeU PhiUips?. Was it Charlea Sumner?' If it were not that the blasphemy shocka ub, we should gather from all this that it dwelt in the mind of ^he Presi dent of the United Statea, that the orily reason why he was not a Judas was thathe had not hoen able to find a Christ towarda whora to play the Judas. It would appear that thia "opinion,**" given inpuraa-l ance of his constitutional obUgation, was receivea with cheers and hiaaea. Whethar the cheers were that certain' Eatriotic pereons named by hipi might be hanged, or the issiug was because of the inabiUty of the President to' plav the part of Ji^das, for the reasons before stated, I am sorryto aay the evidence will not infdi-ra ua. HiB anawer makes thePresident say that it ia his "duty to expreaa opinions conceming the public characters, aud the conduct, views, purposes, objectai motives and tenden cies of all men engaged in the public service.*' Now, aa "the character, motivea, tendencies, purpoaea, objects and viewa of Judas alone bad opinions expreaadd'' - about thera on thia fi.t occasion (although he se'eraed to de sire to have Borao others, whose naraea he mentioned, hanged)^ I ahall leave his counael to inforra you what were the public services of Judas Iscariot, to 'say nothing of Moses, which it waa the constitutional duty and right df thePreaident of the United States tddlacut^s on this par ticularly "fit occasion." But I wiU not puraue this revolting exhibition any fur ther. I will only show you at Cleveland he crowd and the Presidentof the United Statesiin the darkndss of night, bandying epithets With each other, crying:— "Mind your dignity, -Andy ;'l "Don*t get mad, , Andy ;" "Bully for yon, I hardly dare ahock, as I muatiBvery sense of propriety by calling your attention to the President'e alluaion to the death of the sainted martyr, Lincoln, as the means by which he attained hia office: an^d if, iJ can be juatified .in any man, public or private, I ara entirely mistaken in tho comraoneatpropertiea of life. The PreBident shaU teUhie own story :-^ ¦ , - "There wafl two years ago a ticket bi^ore you for the PresidehcF "^ * — ^ • — — **¦"* *--'-~* — s*'^ '. ,^--*i: guished citi bad!' 'Unf „. , ^ , - — ,--. say 'unfortunate!' Yea; unfortunate for aorae that God •rulea on high and deala in juatice, (Cheers.) Yes, unfor tunate : -the ways of Providence are rayateriouB and lh. coraprehensible, controUing aU who exclaim' ^unforto- Article 11 charges that the President having denied in.' a public speech on the 18th of August, 1866, at Waahington. that the Thirty-niuth Congress was authorized to (^xerc:^ legislative power, and denying that the legialation of said Congreaa wae valid or obligatory upon him, or that it had Sower to propose -certain araondraenta to the Constitution, id atterapt to prevent the execution of the act entitled "An act ^Regulating the Tenure . of Certain Cl^ Offices,!' by unlawfuUy attempting to devise meahs' by which to prevent Mr. Stanton from resuming the functions bf the office of Secretary of the Depart raent of War,, notwithstanding the refuaal of the. Senate to concur in hia Buspeneion, and that he alao ,cph^^ trived meane to prevent the execution of an act of March% 1867, which provides that all railitary ordera ahall be isaued through the General of the Army of the Unitdd Statea janst"?' alao another act of the sarae 2d of March, commonly 'k.noMn- aa the Eeconstruction act To austain this charge propf. wiU be given of his denial of the authority of CongreBB,,as charged; alao hia letter to the General of tho Army, in which he adraita that he endeavored to prevail on him, bv proraises of pardon-and indemnity, to disobey the require raents of the Tenure- of Office act, and to hold the office ,of Secretary of War againat MrJ Stanton after he had been reinstated by the Senate ; that he chided the General for not acceding to hia requeet, and declared tbat had'-he known tbat he (Grants would not have acceded to his wishes, he would have tal^n other raeans to prevent Mr, Stanton from reauming his office; hia admiasiona in hia answer, waa that hia purpoae was. from the first auspijn- sion of Mr. Stanton", on August 12, 1867, to oust him from hia office, notwitliatauding the decision of the Senate under the'act; his order to General Grant to refuae toli^ cognize any order of Mr.Stantou purporting to come frdm. hiraself after he waa BO reinstated, and his order to Ge)^' ral Thomaa, as an officer df the army of the UnitedStates, to take posaeaaion of tbe War Offlce. not transmi'tted, a^ it ahould have . been, through tho General ofthe Arm.y; and the declarations of General Thomaa that, as an officer of the Army of the United States, he felt bound" to obey the orders of tbe Commander-in-Chief. To prove further the purpose and intent with which hia declarations were raade, and his denial of the power" of Congress to propose amendraents to the Cohstitutiou aa, one of the raeana eraployed by hira to prevent the exe cution of the acts "of Congress, we shall show he bas op-' posed and hindred the pacification of the country and , the return of the insurrectionary Statea to the Union, and baa advised the Legislature of the State of Alabaraa not to adopt the,. Conatitutional Arapndmept, known'aa the fourteenth article, wlien appealed to to know. if itwas beat for the' Legislature so to do, and this, .to, after that araendraent had been adopted by a majority of the loyal State Legislatures, and aftPr, iu the . election .of , 1865, it ha,d beenauatained hv an, overwhelming, majb* rity df the Ibyal pe.dplc of the United.StatieB. I do not ap pose cdmineht further on thfe article, becauae, if the Se- nate'ahairhav^ decided that flll ,the , acta ' charged in-^he ;preceding articles are justified by law, th^n so large .aj^art of the intent and purposes with which the 'respondent is charged in thia article would fail of proof, that it wouldoo difficult to say whether he mightnot, with equal iiojpu- nity, violate the laws known as the Reconstruction actsi which in his piessage he declares "as plainly unconstitu* tional as any' that can be inaugurated." If that be m),, why ahouldhe not ,\iolate them? If, therefore, the judte* ment of the Senate shall sustain ift upon the other art*- cies, we shall take judgment upon this by confesrion, aB the reapondent declares in the same raesaage that b0'doea not intend to execute thera, ' < * Is it wonderful at all that Such a Bpeeoh,'Which seemp to h^ave been unprovoked and coolly uttered, should have eli cited the single response from the orowd, "Bully for you?'* I go no further. I might foUow thiMOdnauseaTn. I grant tbe President of the United StateaTurther upon this dia- gracefur scene the mercy of my silence. Tell me, how, ^who can rca^ this account of thia exhibition, and reflect thatthe resi;ilt of our institutions of govemment has been to place such a man, ao loat to decency and propriety pf . conduct, F.o unfit, in the bigh office of ruler of thia nation, without bluahiug and hanging his head in.ahameaa the finger of zcorn and contempt for republican democracy is " pointed at him by some advocate of mdnarchy in the old world? . ' What answer have you when an inteUigent foreigndr , ^ says, "Look! see! thiafe the culmination ofthe ballot uh- ./ restrained in the hands of a free people in a country where any man mav aspire to the officeof President. Ia not our government of an hereditary king Or emperor a better one, where at Icastouraovereignfebornagentloman, than to have BUeh a thing as this for a ruler?" ' IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 59 Yes, we have an anawer. . We can say this raan was not the choice ol the people for the President of the United Statea. He was thrown to the surface by the whirlpool of a civU war, and carelessly, we grant, was elected to the second Jjdace in the government, with out thought that ho ralgft ever fiU tho first. By murder most foul, he succeeded to the Presidency, and ia the elect of an aBsaBsiu to that high office, .and not of the people. "It waa a grievous fault, and grievously have we answered it;?' but let mp teU you, oh, advocate of monarchy, that our form of goverraent gives ua a remedy for such misfortune, which youre, with ita divine right of kings, does not. We can remove, as we are about to do, from the office he haa disgraced, by the sure, aafe and con stitutional raethod of irapeaohment; while your king, if he becomes a buffoon, or a jeater,.or.a tyrant, can only be diaplaced through revolution, bloodahed and civil war. Thia— thie, oh raonarcHiflt! ia the crowning glory of ourin- Btitutions ; because of which, if for no other i-eason, our form of government clairas precedence over aU other go vernments of tbe earth. To the bar of this high tribunal, invested with all ite great powers and dutiiea, tho House of Repreaentativea h»»*brought the Preaident ofthe United States by the pioat aole^nn form of accueation, charging him 'with high crhnea and mfederaeanora in office, aa aet forth in the several articlea which I have thua feebly presented to Tour attention. Now, it seems neceaaary that I should briefly touch upon and bring freshly to your remembrance the history of some of the events of hiB- adrainistration of affairs in high office, in order that the intents with .which and the purposes for which the reepondent cora- mitted the acts alleged against him may be fuUy under stood. Upon the first reading of the articles of impeachment, the question might have arisen in tbe raind of Borae Sena tor, why arethedo acts of the President ouly preBented'by the Houee, when history informs us that othera equally .dangerous to the liberties of tho people, if not more so, and others of equal usurpation of powera, if not greater, are passed by in silence? To such possible inquiry we reply, that the acts set out in the firat eight article^ are but the culraination of ase- riea of wrongs.'! malfeasances and uBurpatlons comraitted by the respondent, and, therefore, need to he examined in the light of hia precedent and concomitant acts, to grasp their scope aud design. The last three articles presented show the perversity and maUgnity with which he acted, eo tnat the man, as he is known to ua, may be clearly -spread upon record, to be seen and known of aU men hereafter. What has been the respondent's courae of adrainiatra- tion? For the evidence we rely upon coraraon farae and curi'ent hiatory, aa sufficient proof. Dy the coraraon law, common farae, si oriatur apud boiws et. graves, was ground of indictraent even: more than two hundred and forty years ago it was determined in Parliaraent that cora mon fame isagoofl. ground for the proceeding of thia House, either to inquire of here dr to transmit to the com plaint, if the Houso find cause, to the King or Lords." Now, is it not well known to all good and brave men, {boTwa et oraves^ that Andrew Johnson entered the office of Preaident of the United Statea at the close of au arraed RebeUion, making loud denunciations, frequently and everywhere, "that traitora oughttobe punfehed, and trea son Bhould be made odious ;. that the loyal and true men of j the South shoffla be fostered and encouraged ; and, if there were but few of them, to such only ahould be given in charge the reconatruction of the disorganized Statea." * Do not all men know that ao.on afterwards he changed his courae, and only made treaaon odious, so far as he was concemed, by appointing traitore to office, and by indiscri minate pardon to all who "came in unto him? '' Who doea not know tbat Andrew Johnaon initiated, of hia own wiU, acoUraeof reconstruction of the Rebel Statee, which, at at the time, he claimed was provisional only,'and until the meeting of GongxcBS an its action thereon? Who doea not know that when Congress met and under took to legislate upon this very aubject of reconstruction, of which he had advfeed them in hfe raeaaage, which they fdone had the power to do, Andrew Johnson, last afore said, again changed hia course, and declared that Congresa had no power to legislate upon that aubject, but that the two houaes had •only the power separately to judge of the «uaUficationa of the members who might be sent to each- ;y rebellioua conBtituenciea, acting under State organiza- taODS which Andrew Johnaon had called into dxistence by hfe late fiat, the electorB of which were voting by his per- miBsion and under hfe Umitations? ¦Who docs not "know that when Congress, asBlinin^ its rightful power to propoBe amendments to the Constitution, had paased Buch an amendment, and bad submitted it to the States aa a measure of pacification, Andrew Johnson advfeed and counseled the Legislatures Of the States lately in Rebellion, as well aa others, to reject the amendment. so that it might not operate aa law and thus estabUah eqnalHy of entirage in all the Statea and equality of righta in the number of the Electoral CoUege and in the number of the Representatives to the Congrees of the United States. Lest any one shoulddoubt tho correctneaa of this piece of hiatory. or the truth of thia coramon fame, we shaU show you that, while the Legialature of Alabaraa waa de- Kberaung upun the reconeideration of the vote whereby it had rejected the constitutional amendment, the fact being OTOUght to the'knowledgo qt Andrew Johnaon, and hfe advice asked, htf, by a telegraphic message nnder his own hand, hero to be produced, to show his intent and pur poses, advfeed tlie Legislature againat paesmg the amend ment, and to remain firm in their opposition to Cougreas. We shall -show like advice of Andrew Jphuaon upon the sarae subject to the Legislature of South Cardllna, and this, too, in the winter of 1867, after the action of Congress in proposing the constitutional amendraents had been sus tained in the previoua election by an overwhelming ma jority. ;rhuB wechargethat Andrew Johnson, Presidentof the United Statee, not only endeavors to thwart the consti tutional action of Congresa, and bring it to naught but, afeo to hinder and oppose the execution of the wul of the loyal people of the United States, expressed in the only mode in which it can he done, through the baUot box, in the election of their representatives. Who does not knoW that from the hour he began these, hia usurpations of power, he everywhere denounced Congress, the legaUty and constitution ality of its action, and defied its legitimate power; aud for that purpose announced hia intention and canied out his purpose, aa far as he was able, of removing every true man from office who austained the Congress c« the United States? And it sis to carry out this plan of *action thAthe clairas the unliraited power of removal, for the iUegal exercise of which he stands before yon to-day. Who does not know that in pursuance of the same plan he liaed his veto power indiscriminately to prevent the paaaage of wbolesohie lawa, enacted . for tbe pacifica tion of the country, and when laWs- were paBsed by the conatitutional majoritiea over hia vetoes he made the most determined opposition, both open and covert, to them ; and for the purpoae of making that opposition eff'ectual he endeavored to • array, and did array, aU the people lately in rebellion to set themaelves against Congreas, and againat the true and loyal men, their neighbors, so tbat murders, asaassinations ana maaaacres were rife ail over the Southern Statea, which he encouraged byhis refuaal to , coneent that a aingle murderer ahould be punfehed, though thouaanda of good men have been slain; and, furibcr, that he attempted, by ' railitary orders, to prevent . the execution of acts of Congreaa by the military commandera who were ohargdd therewith. These, and hfe concurrent acts ahow concluaively that his attempt to get control of the military force of the govemraent by the seizure of the Departmeut of War, w'aa done in purauance of hid general design, if it wdre possible, to over throw the Congress of the United States, and he now clairas, bv hia answer, the right to control at his own wUl, for the execution of tliiB very design, every officer of the array, navy, civil and diplomatic service of the United States; He asks yoiT here. Senators, by your solemn ad- judication, to confirm- hira in that right— to invest him with that power, to be used with the intenta and for the purposes which he haa already shown. The responsibility is with you ; -the safeguards of the Constitution against usurpation are in your hands; the interests .and hopes of free institutions wait upou your actidn. The House of Representatives haa done its duty. We have preaented the facts in the conatitutional raanner ; we hdve bronght the crirainal to your bar, and demand judgment at your hands for hia great criraes. Never again, if Andrew Johnson go quit and free thia ¦ day, can the people of thia or any other country, by con stitutional checks or guards, stay the usurpation of Execu tive power. I apijak, therefore, not tbe language of exag geration, but the wdr^a of truth and. sohemesB, in saying that the future political welfare and liberties of allmdn hang trembling on the decfeion of the hour. Recess* , At flve minutes before three o'clock, Seuator WIL SON interrupted Mr. Butler to move that the Senate take a recess nf ten minntes. . Mr. BUTLER— I am very mnch obliged to the Senator. The Chief Jnstice jjnt the question on the niotion and declared it adopted, and the Senate took a recess accprdlbgly, BnsinesB Resnmed. The Chief Justice promptly, called the Senate to order at the expiration of the ten minatea, and Mr. Butler concluded 'his Onening at seventeen minntea before foar. His description, of the scenes at St. Louis caused several audible titters in the gallery, particu larly, when Dowing low to the President's counsel, he reiterated with emphaSia the words '*high constitu tional prerogative." Mr. BINGHAM -of the managers, then roae »nd said:— Mr. President, the managers on the part ofthe House are ready to proceed with the testimony tb make good the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Eepresentatives aeainet the President of the United States, and my associate, Mr. Wilson, wiU presentthe testimony. Mr. WILSON— I wish to state in behalf ofthe mana gers that, notwithatauding the meaning! of the doca- ment which we deem important to be presented in evidence have been set out in the exhibits accompany ing the answers, and also, in some of the answers, we still are of the opinion that it is proper for us to pro duce the documents originally, by way of guarding against any mishap that might arise from imperfect copies set out in the answer. I oSfit, first, on behalf of the managers, a certified 60 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. copy of the oath of office of the President of the United States, which I will read :— ^ I do soleranly Bwear that I will faithfuUy execute tbe officeof Presidentof the United States, and wUl, to the beat of my abihty, preaerve, protect and defend the Con stitution. _ (Signed.) ANDEEW JOHNSON. To which IS attached the following cet-tificate :— L Salmon P. Chase. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Lnited States, hereby certify, that on the 15th day -of Apnl, 1865, at the City of Washington, in tbe District of Columbia, personally appeared Andrew Johnaon, Vice Pre sident upon whom, by the death of Abrahara Lincoln, late President the duties of the offiee of Preaident have de volved, and took and subscribed the oath of office above, &c. (Signed.) SALMON P. CHASE. Chief Justice. Mr. WILSON read the attestation of the docu-- ment by Frederick W. Seward, acting Secretary of State, and continued, I now offer the "nomination of Mr. Stahton as Secretary of War, by President Lin coln. Itis aa follows:— • In ExEOUTiTE Sbbston Senate op thh Umited States, January 13, 1862,— The foUowing message was received from the President of- the United States, by Mr. Nicolay, nfe Secretary :— , .To the Senate ofthe United States:—! norainate Edwin M. Stanton, of Pennsylvania, to be Secretary of War, in iplace of Simon Cameron,* nominated to be Minister to fiuBBia. (Signed.), ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Executive Manaion, January 13,1862. I next off'er tbe rati fication. of the Senate in Bxe cntive session, upon the said nomination : — Iw ExEOFTrvE Sessiok, Senate of tue United States, Jan. 15, 1862. Resolved, Thatthe Senate advise and conaent to the ap pointment of Edwin M. Stanton, of Pennaylvania^ to be Secretaryof War, agreeably to tbe appointment. Mr, WILSON read the certification of the Secre tary df the senate. I nest offer a copy of the communication made to the Senate December 12, 186T, by the President. ' As this document is somewhat lengthy, I will not read It nnless desired. It is the ihessa^e of the President of the United iStates assigning bis reasons fur the suspension of the Secretary of \Var. *^ Several Senatbre— "Head it." Mr. WILSON proceeded to read the somewhat lengthy document at twenty minutes past four o'clock* Senator SHERMAN rose aud said:— Mr. President, if the honorable managers would allow me, I would move to adjourn. Mr. STANBERY said aa far as the connsel were concerned they would dispense with the readine. Senator SHERMAN— I move that the Senate, sit ting as a court of impeachment, adjonrn until to-mor row, at the usnal hour. Mr. SUMNER suggested an adjournment nntU 10 o'clock to-morrow, but the Chief Justice put the ques tion on Mr. Sherman's motion, and declared it car ried- The Chief Justice then vacated the chair. PROCEEDINGS OF TUESDAY, MARCH 31. The Senate met at noon. After the presentation of a few nnimportant petitions, the Chair was vacated, and immediately assumed by the Chief Jastice. The Sergeant-at-Arms made the nsnal proclamation, and the managers and members of the House were successively announced and took their seats. The connsel for the President also entered and were seated. The galleries, at the opening, were not more than half full. Additional Evidence. Mr. WIIiSON, on the part of the managers, said iu continaatlon of the documentary evidence, X now offer a resolntiou passed by the Seuate in Executive Session, in response to the message of the President, notifying the Seuate of the sUBpension of Hon. Ed win M. Stanton as Secretary of War. Also,- the reso lution adopted in Execntive Session of the Senate, January 13, 1868, declariag that the Senate did not concur in the suspension of Edwin M. Stanton from, the OfBce of Secretary of Wap, was read and put ia evidence, together with the order of the same date dl- recting the Secretary of the Senate to communicate an offlcial and authenticated ^py thereof [to the Pre- sident, Mr, Stanton and General Grant,, Mr. WILSON then produced and offered in evi dence an extract fromthe Journal of the Senate in Executive Session bf February 21, 1868, showing the proceedings of the Senate on the message of the President, announcing that he had suspended Mr. Stanton from office. Mr. WILSON also produced and' offered in evi dence an authentic cony of the commission of Edwin M. Stanton as Secretaryof War; stating at the same time that that was the only commission under which the managers claim that Mr. Stanton had acted as Secretafir of War. The commission is in tbe usual form, and contains a provision that JfidwinM. Stanton shall have and hold the offlce, with all the powers, privileges and. emoluments pertaining to the same, during the pleasure of the President of the tJnitfed States for the time being. It is dated June 15, 1869, and signed by Abraham Lincoln. Tbe First WitnesB. The first witness called by the managers waa Wil liam McDonald, one of Ibe clerks of the Senate. Be-' fore proceeding to examine him, Mr. BUTLER asked, . in behalf of the ma!nagers,' that the witnesses who - were in attendance should be alloWjed to remain on the floor of the Senate. The Chief Justice intimated that they had better re main in the room assianed to them by the Sereeaut- at-Arms until they were called,' The witness took hia stand by the left of the Seere- tai:y's desk, and was sworn by the Secretary in the following form, and with uplifted hand:— ,. "You do Bwear, that the evidence you shall give initlie caae now pending, the United Statea vs. Andrew JohnKm, ' ahall be ihe truth, the whole truth, and nothing hatihe truth, so hell) you God." The examination was conducted bv Mr. Butler, as follows:— Question. State your name and offlce. Answer. William J. McDonald, Chief Clerk ofthe Senate. Look at this paper, and read the certificate whicll appears to be signed by your name. • ' Witness reads as follows: — Office of the Sechetaet of the Senate of tiie United States, Washington, February 27, 1868.^An at tested copy of the toregoing reaolutions was left by me at the office of the President of the United States, in the Execative Mansion, he not being present^bout 9 o'clock P. M., on the 13th of January, 1868, W. J. MoDONALD, Chief Clerk of the Senate of the United States. Q. Is that certificate a correct one of the acts done? Is it a correct certiflcate of the acts done, and the paper was left as that certificate Btates? M. It wa&. Head this other certiflcate. Witness reads as follows : — , . Office of the Seoeetaut of the Senate of the United States, Washington, Fob. 21, 1868 An att^ed copy ofthe foregoing resolution waa delivered by rae into the hands ofthe President of the United Statea. at hia offioa in the Executive mansion, at about 10 o'clock P. M„ ontba, 21st of February, 1868. W. J. MoDONALD,'; I Chief Clerk of the Senate of the United Statos. Q. Do you make the same statement as regard^this service? A. Yes, sir, the same statement. ''' . Mr. WILSON then read the resolutions of the Senate of January 13, 1868, and February 22, 1868, to the ser vice of which the last witness had testified. The re solution of Jannary 13, 1868, is that by which the Se nate refuses to concur in the snspeusion of Mr. Stan ton, aiid the resolution of February 22, 1868, ie that by which the Senate resolves tiiat under tbe Constitntion and laws Of the United State, the President has no power to remove the Secretary of War and to desig nate another offlcer to perform the duties of thatofflM od interim. Mr. Jones' Testimony. The next witness called was J. W. Jones, who was examined by Mr. Butler, as follows:— Q. State your name and position 9 A. J.W. Jones, Keeper of the Stationery ot the Senate. Q. You are an officer bf the Senate ? Yes. Cj. Statp whether or not you know Major-Geheral Lorenzo Thomas,. Adjatiiat-Qeneral of the United States Army ? A. I do. IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 61 Q. How lone have you known him? A. I have known him six or seven years. _ Q. Were you employed by the Secretary of the Se nate to serve on him a notice of the proceedings ofthe Seuate ? A. I was. Q. Looking at this memorandum, when did you attempt to make the service ? A. On the 21st of Fe braary, 1866. > Wliei-e **Ad Interim" was Found. Q. Where did yon, find him? A. I found him at the ai»rini!s' Ball Masked Ball. ft. Was he masked? A. He was. Q. How did you know it was he? A. I saw his shoul der-straps aud asked him to numask. Q. Did he do so? A. He did. Q, After ascertaining thatit was he, what did you do? A. I handed him a copy of the resolution of the Senate. Q. .^bont.what'time of the day or night? A. About eleven o'clock at night. ff. Did you make the service then? A. I did. ¦'Q. Have you certified the facts? A. Yes. Q. Is that certificate there? A. Il m. andi;be witness accordingly took lus position at the right-hdnd side of the Secretary's desk, when the examination was con tinued. Q. For the class of appointments for which snch commissions would be issued^ was there any other form used before that time? A. I think that is the form for a permanent commission. Q. Now give the form that has been used in the Treasurj Department since the passage of the aot of March 2, 1S6T. Mr. STANBERY, coansel for the President, asked Mr. Butler to be kind enough to state the object of the testimony. i , Mr. BUTLBK replied, the object of thia testimony ifl TO show that, prior to the passage of the act of March 2, I86t known as the Civil Tenure of Office bill, a certain formiof commission was used and is sued by the President of tbe United States, and that after the passage of the Civil Tenure of Office bill, a new'form was made conforming to the Civil Tenure of Office act, thus showing that the President acted on the Tenure of Office act as an actual valid law. Mr. BUTLER resumed the examination as follows :— .Qv'Isee there are certain interlineations, in'tbis form. Do you speak of the form before it was inter lined, or subsequently? A. This commission sho'ws the changes that have beeu made conformably to the Tenure of Offlce bill. (^, There is a portion of that paper in print and. a portion in writing; do I understand you that the printed portion was the form before the Tenure of Offlce bill was passed? A. Yes. Q. And the written portion shows the changes? A. Yes. Read with a load voice the printed portion of the commission, ' ... Senator CONNESS suggested that the reading had better be done by the Clerk, and the commission, in its original and in its altered form, was read by the Secretary of the Senate.- In the original form the offlce was to be held "dur ing; the pleasure of the.President of the United States fof the time being." In the altered farm these .words were struck out,. and the following words substituted: "Until a successor shall have been appointed and duly qualifled." The examination was resumed. Q. Sincethat act haa anv other form of commission been .used tbau th^ one as altered for such appoint ments? A. No, sir. ' ,Q. Have you now the form of the official bond of officers used prior to the Civil Tenure of Office act? . A. I have. Witness produces it. Q. Has there been any change made in it? A. No sir. Q. Please give me a copy of the cominission issued fpr temporary appointnaents since the Tenure of Of fice act. , ^ ' Witness. bands tbe paper, to Mr. Butler. Q. State whether the printed part of this paper was the part in use prior to the Tenure of Office act? A. It was. Q. Was any change made in the form of commis sion? A. Yes. The comraission was read by the Secretary of the Senate, sliowing that the words "during the pleasuije of the President of the Uiiited States for the time being" were struck out, and the words "unless this conltnission is sooner revoked by the Presideni of tha United States for the time being," substituted. Q. State whether before these changes were made the offlcial opinion of the Solicitor ot" the Treasury was taken? A. It was. i Q. Have you it here? A. Ihave. Witness hands the oaper to Mr. Butler. After a moment Mr. Butler said he withdrew the question, Q. Do you know whether,, since the alteration of thid form, any commissions have beeu issued, signed by the President! as altered. A. Yes, sir. Q. Has the President signed both tbe temporary and permanent forms of commissions, as altered? A, Yes, sir. Mr. Edmnnd Cooper's Case. Q. Lobk at this paper, last banded to you, and state what it is? A- It is a commission isaued to Mr. Ed mund Cooper, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. CJ. Under what date? A. The third of November, 18ST. Q. Who was tbe Assistant Secretary of the Treasury ' at the tirae of issuing that commission? A. Mr. E. E. Chandler. -- ' Q. Do you happen t.o remembfer, 'as a matter Of memory, whether theSenate was then in sessiou? A. I think it was not. Q. State whether Mr. Cooper -qualified and went into office under the flrst commission?,', A. He did not qualifyunder.the flrst commission, Q. what is the second paper I banded to you? A. It is a letter pf authority to Mr. Cooper to act as As sistant Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. EVARTS asked whether the other paper was considertd as read, and Mr. BUTLER replied that it was. Mr. EVARTS asked; wheu are we to know the con tents of these papers, if thev arc not read? Mr, BUTLER stated that they were the same as read. * Mr. EVARTS responded, well, let it b^ so stated; we know nothing whatever about them. The Secretary ofthe Senate read the comission of Mr. Cooper, dated November 3, 1867, which provides that he shall hojd his offlce to the end of the next session of ihe Senate, and oo longer, subject to the conditicms prescribed bylaw. He also read the letter of authority of December 22, 1867, which recites that a vacancy had occurred in the office ot Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and that in pursuance of thei authority of the act of Congress of 1799, Bdwaid Cooper is au- thoriied to .perform the duties of tbe Assistant Secre tary ot the, Treasury until a successor be .appointed, or siichivacaucy be fllled. . v T.;r x,.r„r,T „.„ The examination was continued by Mr, BUTLER. Q. How did Mr. Chandler get out of office? A. He resigned. . .. . . ». „ . x ^ Q. , Haveiyon a copy of his resignation? A. I have not. 62 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. Q. Can you state from memory at what time his resienation took effect? A. I cannot; it was only a day or two before the appointment of 'Mr. Cooper. The witness was cross-examined by Mr, CURTIS, as follows:— Q. , Can you flx tho day when tbis change in the form of the commission was first made? A. I think it was about the^ourth day after the passage ofthe act. Q.' With what confldence dd von speak; do you from recollection? A. I speak fromthe decision of the Sec retary of tbe Treasury on the subject, Vhich was given on the 6th of Mnrch. \ ©.Then you would flx the date as the 6th of March? .A. Yes, fir.. Senator HOWARD again complained that itwas impossible for the Senators to hear the. testimony, and Mr. CURTIS repeated it as follows:— The qnestion was for the witness to flx the date When this change in tho form of the permanent com mission first occurred? ft. "Willyou'-nowstatewhat that date was, according to your best recollection? A. It was the 6th of March, 1867. Bart Van Hom sworn on the part of the managers. "Ad Interim" and tbe War Oflnce. Mr. BUTLER— Q. Will you state whether you were -present at the War 'Department -when Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General of the United States Army, was there to make demaud for tho offlce, prooerty, books and records? A. I was. ^ When was it? A. It was on Saturday, the 22d of February. rk ; Hon. J. K. Moorhead, of Pennsylvania ; Hon. Col npibas De lano, of Ohio; Hon. W. D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, and Thomas W. Perry, of Michigan, and'' myself; the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, and his son, were also present. . Q. Please state what took place. A. The gentlemen and myself were in the Secretary's office^the office he .usually occnpies as Secretary of War ; General Thomas came in. apparently from the President's ; came into the bnilding and came up stairs; when be came into the Secretary's room flrst, he said, "Good morning, Mr. Secretary; good morning, gentle men;" tbe secretary replied, "Good morning;" .and, I believe, we all said good morning; then he began the' conversation rs follows (reading) :— "I ani Secretary of War ad interim, and am ordered by the President of the United States to take charge of the office;" Mr. Stanton replied ae follow?:— "I •. order you to renaii; to yonr room and exercise yonr 'fanctions as Adjutant-General of the Army;" Mr. 'Thomas replied to this, "I am Secretary of War (td interim, and I sh^ll not obey your orders ; but I shall obey the orders of the President, who.has ordered me take charge of the War Departmeut ;" Mr. Stanton replied to this as follows:— "As Secretary of War, I order you to repair to your place as Adjutant-Gen eral;" Mr. Thoinas replied : — "I will not do so ;" Mr. .Stanton then said, in reply to General Thomas:— "Then you may stand there, if you please, but you caunot act as Secretary of War ; if yOu do, you do so at your peril ;-" Mr. Thomas replied to this :— "I shall act as Secretary of War;" this was the conversation in the Secretary's room. Q. TOwit happened then ? A. After tbat they went to tha room, of General Schriver, opposite to the Secretary's room. Q. Who went first? A. General Thomas went first; he had some conversation with General Schriver that I did not hear ; he was followed by Mr. Stanton, by General Moorhead and Mr. Ferry;, and then by my self; some Littie conversation was had that 1 did not hear, but after I got into .the room — it was but a mo ment after "they weut in, bo>vever—Mr. Stanton ad dressed Mr. Thomas as folloW'S. which I understood wae the summing up of the oonver8.ition. Mr. EVARTS— Never mind about that. ¦ Witness- Mr. Stanton said, "Then yoa claim to "be here as Secretaryof War,' and refuse to obey my crdei'sf" Mr. Thomas said, "I do, sir; I shall re quire the mails ofthe War Department to be delivered to me, and shall transact all the business of the War Department ;" that was the snbstance of the conver sation which I heard, and, in fact, the Conversation as I heard it. du By Mr. BUTLEE-^Q. iDid yon make any memorai^ uam afterwards? A.l made it at the time; I had paner in my hand at the time, and I took it down as -the conversation occn cred; it was copied off by » clerk in tbe presence of the gentlemen with me. 6. What was done after that? Where did Mr. Thdmas go? A. It was then after eleven o'clock ; tltt reat of ns came right to the Honse, .and I lm<, Mr. Thomas in the room with General. Sclffiver. Cross-examined by Mr. STANBERY, „ .„ ^ , The witness stated that he went to tbe War Depart ment to see the Secretary of. War on pnblic basinesi, Ihe time beine a rather exciting one; went thereto talkVilh him ou pablic affairs, namely, on the subject ot the removal ; did talk with on that subject; -.vent there in company with Mr. Clark, of New York ; ar rived there a little before eleven o'clock; General Moorhead and Mr. I'erry were there when -he ar rived; thought Mr. Delano was there; also two or three otiiers came in after'wards; could not say what thsre business was; they did not state it to him; General Thomas then Came into the room ; when tin conversation between Gen. Thomas and the Secretary began, witness ^ad a large envelope and pencil ia his pbcket, and when the conversation took place it oc curred to him that it might be well tc know what they said ; witness did not know that he was in the habi,t S/ making inemoranda of conversation; nobody, re quested him to do it ; it was of his own motion ; after the conversation was ended witness thonght General Thomas went out first, and the Secretary of War fol lowed but a moment after ; witness did not state what ^his abject was, and did not recollect that the Secretary , requested any of the gentlemen to go with him; wit ness' followed upon bis own motiou; did not know that all went in ; General Moorhead and.itnother went in before him; they followed the Smretary very soon, perhans a minute after he woiu in ; could not say what had taken place before he went iu ; witness heard .some conversation, but did not.'.know what it was then ; tbe conversation he had detailed followed ; witness had' his pencil and'enrelopoin his hand when he went in ; did not know where 'that en velope is now ; it was probably destroyed ; co^d it off immediately at the Secretary's table ; could'J nol say that it was destroj'ed ; had no knowledge of it-jjtfiv document; what he had been reading from was not manuscript, it was a copy of his testimony before the committee, taken frora the notes he wrote ; road them i to a young man in the Sefcretary'a office, who copied' them; did not know that it was important to keep the original; did not know the name of the clerlt who took the copy; preserved the notes until he- t^B- tified -before the committee; could not eay hoff long he preserved them; conld not say what bas'be- come of tbo envelope; had not searched for iit; suggested of his own motion, after ,he returned to the Secretary's room; tbat the .'notes should be wril^ ten out ; a young man was- there ready to do it ; waa not aware that anything else took place in General Schriver's room than what he had' testified to;, coald not say who-leftthe room first; left Secretary Stanttin there and went into the Secretary's room; coi^ not say whether Mr. Stanton came in while the'noteB were being copied or not; saw Mr. Stanton sittioj then in his own office, after be left the room; did not know what took place between them afterwardsi'saw no friendly greeting between Mr. Slanton and-Geneial Thomas weile in General Schriver's room ; the lioteB he took on the envelope were questions and answerfl, of which the copy was an exact transcript, though it did not exhibit the whole conversation; and one ex pression occnrred to him now that General Thotnas used, and that he did not get down ; the notes covered all the conversation of any importtnce ; what he wrote was verbatim, qnestion and answer ; did not take it in short hand; the conversation was very 'slow and de liberate ; General Thonias said very little in that con versation ; Mr. Stanton did not ask General ThomM if ho wished him to vacate immediately, or if hewould give him lime to arrange his private papers. Ee-Direct examination by Mr. BUTLER The re mark referred to by him in his cross-examination tiat occurred to him now, and that ho had not written ont, was frora General Thomas, to the effect that he did not wish anything unpleasant; that was what Thomll said. Re-Cross-examination ^ Mr. STANBERY.— Q. I'lii' emphasis on the words, "I don't know its materiality," did .he speak that word in the ordinary way ? A. He spoki it iu the way I have mentioned ; he said lie did not want any "unpleasantness;" witness said IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 63 this occurred in tbe first part of the conversation, be fore^ General Thomas went tp his room; had taken part of tho conversation before that ; did not think it material. Mr. BINGHAM— I suppose it is not for the witness to swear wbat be thought about it. Mr. EVARTS—Examining as to the completeness or the perfection of tho witness' memory.. It is certainly material to know why bo omitted some parts and lesr tified to others. Mr. BINGHAM withdrew tho objection. James K. Moorhead aworn on behalf. of tbe mana gers. Direct examination by Mr. BUTLEK Witnosa is a member of tho House of Eepresentatives, and ¦ Was preseut at the War Department on the mornine of Saturday, February ¦ 22, unidorstanding that General Thomas was to be there that morning to take poeses sion of the Department; went there from his board ing-bouse, in company with Mr, Burleigh, who, he nnderstood, bad some conversation with Gonoral Thomas tbe night before;. Mr. Van Horn bad correctly stated wtiat took place^nd witness coald corroborate tb^ statement. ~ O^ectiou by Mr. Cdrtis. • ^ ' Witness proceeded, to say .that General Thomas went over m General Schriver's room; he was fol-, lowed by Mr. Stanton aud himself; Stanton there put' a question to General Thoraas, and asked witness to temomber it, which induced him to make a memoran dum of it; tbat he thonght ho still had among his Eapers ; it was made brietiy and roaghly, but so that e could understand it; Mr. Stanton said, ".General Thomas, you profess to be hero, as Secretary of War, ai.d refuse to obey my orders ;" General Thomas re plied, " I do, sir." After that had passed, witness walked to tbe door loadlug into tho hall, wbon .he hoard- something that attracted his attention, aud he returned ; Mr. Stanton then said, "General Thomas 'reqnires the malls of tho departraent to be, delivered to him ;" General Thomas said, "1 require the mails of the department to be de livered to me, and I will transact the business of. Ihe elides;" witness then asked General Thomas if ho made nse of those words, and he assented aud added, '.'Yoii may make as full a copy as yoa please;" that was all the memorandum wiinoss made, andhe made, it at that time and place, Cross-examined liy Mr. STANBBRY.— Witness had not made a memorandum of the number of persons he i^und at Mr. Stafitbn's office, when ho arrived there, and conld not remember all of them ; there were a niimber of members, of Congress;. he bad seen Mr. Van Horn and Jndge Kelley there; had been ther to a position or an ar gument presented by one ot the honorable managers to aid .the judgment of .'the Senate on the question submitted to it. -That question we understand to be, whether, aC' cording to the rules of this body, the Chief Justice presiding shall determine, preliminarily, interlocator; questions of evidence and of law as they arise, sut^ jeci to the decisiou of the Senate ou presentation b; any Senator of the qnestion to it. Now tfie hono rable manager, Mr. Boutwell, recognizing the great inconvenience that would arise in retarding of the trial from that appeal to so numerous a body on every. interlocutory question, ^while he insists on themagni- •tHde and importance of the right to deterraiue, inri- mates thatthe managere will allow. the Chief Justice to decide unless they see reason tb object. iln- behalf of the counsel for the President, I have only thia to say, that we shall take from ibis court thff rule afe to whether the first preliminary decision ia to be made bythe Chief Ju&tice, or to be made bvthe; whole body, and that we shall liOt submit to thechoica>^ of the managers as to h'ow>far that rule shall be dej^' parted.from. "Whatever the rule is, we shall abide bj!-^ ,. out if the court determine that the proper plan is fo^' the whole body to decide on every interlooiitory ques tion, we shall claim as a matter of right, and as ft matter of course, that that proceeding shall be adopted. Seuator WILSON renewed his motion, that the ^^ nate retire for cousultation. / The vote was taken by yeas and nays, An'd resulted: —Teas, 25; naye, 26, as follows :— Teas.— Messrs. Anthony, Buckajqw, 'Cole,, Conness, Co^ bett,' Davis, Dixon, Edmirtida,"FdwlBr, GrimeB, / Hendricks, Howo, JohiiBon. McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Morrill , (VU, Morton, Norton. Patterson "(N. H.): Patterson .(Teim.)! Pomeroy, Eobb, vickers, Williams and Wilson— 25. ¦ Nays.— Messrs. Cahieron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, CragiTii'Doolittle, Drake,' Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinehny- , sen, Henderson-, Howard, llorgan, Nye, Ramsey, SoulB- bury. Sherman, Spraci id, Stewart, Suraner, Thayer, Ti> ton, Trumbidl, Van Winkle and willey-^aS- ( It being. a,tie vote, the Chief Justice voted yea, thai giving practical effect to the position assumed by him, as to bia-right to vote. '.''"¦¦ The circumstance created some flatter on the floor and mnch amusement in the -galleries. The Senate, headed bv the Chief Jastice, then, at threco'clock. retiredfor consultation, and soon after the ealleries began to thin out. The merabers of the House gathered in knots and indulged ia boisteroiu converaation, and the counsel for the' President coit- suited quietly together. One, two, three hotirs passed, and still the Senators did not return to their Chambet The few spectators in the galleries dawdled list lessly,. Mpst ofthe membera ofthe House souglit other scenes more charming, and the general appear ance of things was listless and nninteresting. At last, at twenty minutes past six, the Senate returned, and the Chief Justice, having called the body to ordefi said:— The Senate has had under consideration Ibe qa^ tion which was discussed before It retired, and biti directed rae to report the following rule: — Rule 7. The presiding officer of tho Senate shall direct all ueceadar J preparations lh the ' Senate Chahihor, ana IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. Hon. EDWIN m., STANTON. Secretary of War. (5) IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 67 fl' the presiding officer of the Senate ehall direct all the forms of proceedings when the Senate is Pitting for the pnrpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms durinff jho trial, not otherwise especially provided for; andthe presiding offlcer, on the trial, may rule on all questions of evidence and ou incidental queBtions, which decision will stand as the judgmentof the Senate, ior decision; or ho mav, at his option, in the firet instance, submit any such q lotion to a vote of tbe mem hers ofthe Senate. Mr. BUTLER intimated that the managers desired to retire for consultation. Senator TRUMBULL said that rniless the managers desired the Senate to continue in session, he would now move an adjournment. The managers intimated that they did not. Senator TRUMBULL then made the motion for ad journment, to twelve o'clock to-rmorrow, which was carried. The Chief Justice vacated the Chair, and the Senate having resumed its legislative session adjourned at twenty minutes past six. The Senate Co nsnl tation* When the Senate retired from their Chamber this afternoon, Mr. Henderscn moved to postpone the pending question on appeals, wit* a view to take up the rules. This was agreed to by the following vote: — Teas— Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Cole, (Jorbett, Cragin, Davisi. Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghfiysen HenderBon, HendrickB, Johnson. McCreery, Morrill (Vt). Norton, Patterson (N. H.), Patterson (Tenn.), P.o'meroy. Robb, Saulsbury, Sprague,,. Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey and WilliomB-32. Nays.— Messrs, Chandler, Conkling, Connesp, Drake, Ferry, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), Morton, Nye, Rameev, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tip ton and Wilson— 18. Mr. Henderson then nA>ved amendments to the seventh rnle, when a motion was made and disagreed to to strike out from the same the words which pro vide that the rulings on questions ef evidence and in cidental qaeations shall stand as the judgment of the Sen ale. Mr. SuMNEB offered an amendment to Mr, Hen derson's proposition, as follows:— That the Chief Juatice, presiding .in the Senate, in the trial of the President of the United States, ie not a mem ber of the Senate, and has no authority, under the Conati tution, to vote on any question during the trial. This was rejected hy the following vote :— Teas.— Mcssrfa. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Howard, Morgan, Mor rill (Me.), Morton, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Sum ner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Williams and Wilson— 22. Nays.- Messrs. Bayard, Buckalow, Cole, Davis, Dixon, ley-26. Mr. Drake moved an ameBdment to Mr. HeBder- son's proposition, as follows: — "It is the judgment of tbe Senate, that, under the Constitution, the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate, in the pending trial, has no privilege of ruling qnestions of law arising therein, but that all such questious should he sub mitted to and decided by the Senate. This was dis agreed to hi the following voter- Yeas.— Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cble, Cont- Ilnfi, Conness, Drake, Ferry, Howard, Howe, Morsan, Morrill (Me.), Morton, Nye, Ramsey, Stewart, Sumuer, Thayer, Tipton and Wilson— SO. Nays — MesBrs. Anthony, Bayard. Buckalew, Corbett, Cragin, '^— =- ¦^'--— '<.-".•- ~, - . j. . ' Fowler, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, IJoolittle, Edmunds, ^'essendon. Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Patterson (N. H.), Pat terson (Tenn.), Pomeroy, Eoss, Saulsbury, Sherman, Van Winkle, Vickers, WiUey-30. i Mr. SHERMAN snbmitted the following, which was rejected by a vote of 25 to 25: — "That under the rules, and In accordance with the pre- oedenta in tno Umted States in cases of impeachmeut, all questions, other than those of order, should be submitted to the Senate." ITinally, the Senators agreed to Mr. Henderson's amendment to the seventh rule, as reported at the dose of the trial repart. The following was the flnal yote :— . Year— Messrs. Anthony, Bayard. Buckalew, Cameron, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Diion, Doolittle, Edmunde, Fessen den, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Henderson, Hendricks, John son, McCreery, Morrill (Vt.), Norton, Patterson (N. H.l, Patterson rfenn.). Pomeroy, Rpjs, Saulsbury, Sherman. Sprague, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey and ¦WiUfains— 31. „,^ „, ^ , „ , „ Nays- Messrs. Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Drake Ferrv, Howard. Howe, Morgan, MorriU (Mc), Norton, Xve," Ramsey, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton and V<'ilson-13. PROCEEDINGS OF WEDNESDAY, APRIL I. The Opening Prayer. The Senate met at 13 o'clock. Prayer was offered by Rev. James J. Kane, of Brooklyn, N. T. He asked a blessing npon this great court, assembled for the trial of the most momentous question which hae arisen during the existence of the nation; the records ofthe past show tbat a like crisis in other nations has been followed by war and bloodshed. He prayed that God^would avert the danger. Many in our bor ders sought a pretext to raake the sword leap trom tha scabbard aud make it drank with the blood of their fellows. He asked that God would turn to naught the counsel of the ungodly and the craftiness of the enemies of our country ; to remember the blood that has already been shed, as well of our martyred Presi dent as of those who died in the field or hospital for the country. He especially prayed that the representatives of the people should be endowed with wisdom and discre tion; that the Executive .be guided by wisdom, whether he remain President or not, and that all his acts be marked by prudence and moderation ; that his constitutional advisers be also guided by the spirit of wisdom, as well as all the rest of those in authority over us; thatthe nation raay bo prepared- to r.eceive the decision of the great event and abide by it; that our especial blessing may rest upon those who have the raanageraent of this trial, so that the result may redound to the houor and glory of God. Arrival of the JManaKers. At ten rainutes past twelve o'clock the Sergeant-at- Arms of tbe Senate announced the managers of the impeachment on the part of the House of Kepresen- tatives. All the managers, except Mr. Steveus, entered and took seats at tne tables on the left side of tbe area, in front of the Secretary's desk. Snbseqneutly Mr. Steveus comes iu and takes his seat. The counsel for tbe President are already seated at the rit^ht hand side. The Sergeant-at-arms theu announced the House of Bepresent A tives of the Halted States. The members of the House enter in pairs, headed by Mr. Washburne (111. )t Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, attended by Mr. McPherson, Clerk, and Mr. Buxton, Assistant Doorkeeper, and closely followed by the Speaker, Mr. Dawes, Mr. Covode and Mr. Win dora. These take their seats on chairs in tbe front aisle. The members generally file off to the right and left, and take the chairs that are placed on the eastern and western angles. The Journal. The Secretary then proceeded to read the journar of the proceedings yesterday. The reading occupied a quarter of an hoar. Sehator SUMNER (Mass.) then rose and said, Mr. President, I send to the Chair an order in tbe nature of a correction of the journal. The Chief Jastice ordered the paper to be read. Tbe Clerk read it, as follows:— It appearing, on the reading of the journal of yes terday, that on a question where the Seuate was equally divided, tbe Chief Jnstice presiding on the trial of tbe President gave the casting vote, it is hereby declared that, in the judgraent of the Senate, such vote was withont authority of the Constitution of the United States. , On that qnestion Senator SUMNER asked for the yeas and uays. The vote was taken, and it resulted— Xeos 21, naya 27, as follows:— Tea6.— Messrs. Caraeron, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, ConnoBB, CraRin, Drake, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Mel), Morton, Pomeroy, llamsey, Stewart, ^Sunmer, Thaver, 'i'ipton, TrumbuU, Williamu, and Wilaonr-2l. Nays— Messrs. Anthony. Bayard, Buckaldi^ Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmund?, Ferry, FeBsondeo, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, HendrickB." Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Vt.). Norton, Patterson (N. H:), Patterson (Tenn.), Robs, Sherman, Sprague, Van Winkle, Vickers, and Willey— 27. So the order was rejected. IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSOK The Contested Interrogatory. ; The Secretary then read the following form of ques tion proposed by Mr. Butler,, one -of the managers, to the witness, W.'X. Burleigh, who 'was on the stand yesterday :-i^ "You said yesterday, iu answer to ray question,, that you-had a conversation with General Lorenzo Thoraas on the evening of tbe 21st of Feb ruary last. State if he said anything as to meane by which he iriteliided to obtain, or was directed by the President to obtain po^ession of the War Depart ment. State all that he said as nearly as yoa caa." Mr. STANBERT, counsel for the President, ob jected to the qnestion. The Chief Jnstice was about to submit to the Seu ate, when ' "' '.' ¦ Senator FRELINGHUTSEN submitted the fpllow ing question in writingto the j' managers :—**Do the managers intend to connect this (jonversation between the witness and General Thomas with the respond ents ?" Mr. BUTLBK, one of the raanageas, rose aud said that if that question was to he argued before the Senate the raanagers would endeavor to answer it. On tbe question being repeated bvthe Chief Justice, Mr. BUTLER rose and said:— If the question ia to be argued ou the one side the other will endeavor to answer the question submitted by the Senator from New Jeraey. In the course ofthe argument Senator TRUMBULL called for the reading ofthe qnestion to the witpess. After it was read the Chief Justice asked whether tbe managers, proposed to auswer the question of the Seuator from New Jersey. Mr. BUTLER agairi rose. If there Ir to be no argu ment I will answer thfe question proposed, but if there is to be an arguraent on the part of the counsel for the President, we propose as a mpre convenient method to answer' the question in the course ot our argument. I can saV that we do propose to connect the respon dent with the qnestion. Argument of IUr. Stanbery. The Chief Justice was about to put the question, when Mr. STANBERT rose to' argne'it. He said:— Mr. Chief Justice aud Senatora. We have at length reached the domain df law, where we have to araue no longer questions of mere form aud modes Of proce dure, but questions that are proper to be argued, by lawyers and to be decided by'a court. The question now, Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, is whether any foundation has beeu laid, eitber in tbe articles them'selves or iu any testimony as yet' giveu, for using any of the declarations of General Thomas in evidence against t'he President. General Thomas is not on trial. It is the President and tbe .President ' alone that is on trial, and the testimony to be offered ¦must be testimony which is binding on him-. Itis agreed that the President was not present on the even ing of the 21st of February, wheu General Thomas made those declarations. They were made in the ab sence of the President... He had no opportunity of hearing them or of contradicting tbem. It they are to be used against bim they must he rqade by some per son speaking for him, by atithority. .First of all, what foundation' is there for tbe declaratinns of Gen. Thomas, to be given in, evidence, as to what Jie in tended to, do, ot, What the President had authorized him to do? It will be seen, that by the flrst article the offence charged agaiust the President is, that he issued a written order to Mr. Stanton for his removal, adding that General Tbornas was authorized to receive th,e ' transfer of the ^ooks, refcords; papers aud property ot the departraent. Now the offense laid iu that article is not as to, anything thatwas done under the order; nbt as to any auiraus by which it was issued; butthe, order iu Itself is simply tbe 'gi'ttvaraen of the 'offense. So much for the first article. Now, what is the second? It is that on'the same day; the Slst of February, 1868, ^the President issued a letter of authority to Gederal Thomas, ahti the gl'avanieu there is the iBsuing of that ietter of authority, not anythibg doue under it. What next? . The third article goes upon the sarae letter of au thority, and charges the issuing of it to be an offense Intended to violate a certain act. Then we come to ¦the. fourth article, Senatorg will obserVe that in the 'three flr^t articles theoffensecharged is issuing cer tain orders lu violatlbu either of the Constitution or the act known as the Tenure of Office act, but in the fourth article the raanagiers. of tbe House proceed to charge us with an entirely new offense against a totally different statute, and that Is a conspiracy between General Thomas and the President, and other persona unknown; by force, in one article, and by intimida tion in another, tb endeavor to prevent Mr. Stanton from holding the offlce of Secretary of War, and that in pOreuance of that conspiracy feertain acts were done which are not naraed, withintent to violate the conspiracy act oi July 31, 1861. These are the only charges which have any relevancy to the question now pending. ? .,.,.¦ -u +u I need not refer to the other articles, m which the offenses charged against the President arise out of his relations .to General , Emory, his speeches made at the Executive mansion, iu August, 1866; at Cleveland, on the 3d of September^ 1865, and &% St. ]Louis, ou the Bth of September. 1866. Now what proof has yet beei^ made under these first eight articles? The, proof i« simply, so far as this question Is concerned, the pro* duction in evidence of the order removing Mr. -Stan ton, and of the order to General Thornas. There they are to speak for themselves. Ab yet we have not had one particle pt what was said by the President, either before or after tbe issOing of the orders. _ The only foundation yet laid for the introduction oi the testiraony usia is the production of the Presi dent's orders. The atterapt now is, bythe declara tions of General Thomas, to show with ¦y^'hat intent the President issued these orders, not by producing General Thomas here to testify as to what the Pr,esi- dcnt told him, but without having General ThoipaS sworn at all, to bind -the President by General ThO' mas' declarations, not made nnder oath, and raade without any cross-examination or contradiction. Now, Senators, what foundation is laid to show/the authority c^iven by the President to General Thomas to speak for him as to hi^ihtent. Tou must find that foundation, if at all, iu the orders themselves. What are those orders? I will read thera. The first is the order to Mr. Stanton :— ESEOUTIVB MATASION, WASHINGTON, D. C, 'Feb. 21, 1868.— Sir:— By virtue of the power and authority vested ¦in me a^ President by the Constitution and laws ofthe United Btates, you are herebv removed from offic^ as Secretary for the Departmeut of Wiar, and your functioha aa such will terminate upon receipt of this communica- You will transfer to Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-G-encral of the army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interimi; all recorda, books, papefs and other pub lic property now in your custody and charge, ReBpectfully yours, Anthibw Joecnboy. To Hon. Edwin M, Stanton, Washington, D. C. So rauch for that. Then comes the order to General Thomas, which I will read to the Senate:— Sir:— Hon. Edviu M.Stanton having been this day re moved from otbee as Secretary for the Departjment of War, vou are hereby authorized sind erapowered to act aa Secre tary of War ad interim,, and will immediately enter upon the duties pertaimng to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instrncted to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other puhUc property now in bis custody and charge , Kespectfully, ypurs, ¦ ANDREW JOHNSON. - To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant- .General United States Army, Washington, D. C There they are. They are ordera made' bythe Pre sident to two of his subordinates— an orfter directing one of them to vacate his oflice and transfer the public ^property in his possession to another party, and an order to that other party to. take poseessiouof the office and to act as Secretary of War ad interim. • Gentlemen, doea that raake a conspiracy? Is that Sroof of a conspiracy, or tending lO a conspil'acy? iqes that make General Thoraas an agent of ths Preadent, iui^nch a sense as that the President vvould l)e<-boaud by everything he says or does even within the scope of his agency? If it makes him his agent, doea thia letter of authority authorize hira to do any thing but that which he is commanded to do— go there and demand possession^ 'and receive a transfer of the records of the depavtment? Dues it .authorize bim to "go beyond the letter aud meaning of authority giveu bira?' Why dertainlynot. In the first place, it njust be either on the fobting oi a conspiracy between General ThOrtias and the Presi- •dent, or on the policy of an agency in which the Presi dent is principal; ahd General Thoraaa is the aeent 'niat the declarations of General Thoraas, either as co-conspirator or as agent, are to be giveu against the President. Tberelsoo other ground on which these hearsay declarations coald be given as evidence. lagree that when a conspiracy is established, or when it is partially established, when testiraony is given tending to proVe it, and a proper foundation laid of a conspiray in which A, B and C are con- IMPEACHMEXT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 69 cerned, then the declarations of one of the conspira- tors, made while the conspiracy is In process and raade in furtherance of the conspiracy, not outside of it, may be eiven in evidence as against the other co-con spirators and hinds the otbers. So, too, I, agree, that where an agency is established eilher by parole, proof or by writing, and when established by writing that is the measure of the agency, and you cannot extend it hy parole. The acts done and the declarations made in pursuance of that aeency, are bindmg on the pi-in cipal. Now, I ask this honorable court where there is any- thiug like acanspiracy here? Where is there auy proof establishiai any agency between General Thomas and the President, in which the President is the principal aud General Thpmaa the agent? I do not admit that thia letter of authority constitutes such agency at all. I do not adrait that the President is bound by any de clarations made by General Thomas on the footing of his being an agent of the President; but if he were, if this were a case of principal and agent, then I say that the letter of authority to General Thomas is that which binds the President, and nothing beyond it. The object here is to show that General Thoraas dtf- dared that it was his intention, and the intention of the President, in executing that authority, to use force, iutiraidation and threats. Suppose a principal gives authority to his agent to go and take possession of a house in the occupancy of another, does that authorize him when he goes thereto commit an as sault aud battery on the tenant, or to drive hira. out vi et armis f Is the principal to be made a criminal by the act of his agent, acting siniply on the authority to take peaceable possesion ot a house, by the consent of the party in posession, or is the principal to be bound by the declaration of the agent when the authority is iu writing and does not authorize such a declaration ? Who of us here would be safe iu giving any authority to another if that were the rule by which we were to be governed ? What, Senators, has the President done that he is to be held, either as a conspirator or as a principal giviug authority to an agent ? Does the President appoint General Thoraas as his agent in any individual matter of his, to take possession of an offlce which belongs to bim, or to take possession of papers that are his property ? Not at all. What' is the nature ol this order ? It is in the custoraary forra ; it is tbe designation of an officer already knowu to the law, to do what ? To exercise a positive duty ; to per forra tbe duties of a public officer. The President is the only authority which gives this power. Is the person whora he appoints his agent? When he accepts the appointment, does he act under these circumstances as the agent of the principal to carry out a private enterpi'iec or perform a private ac tion? Certainly not. He at once become the officer of thelaw, liable as a public officer to removal and im- peachmeur, to indictnient and prosecution for anything that he does in'violatiou of his duty. Are iill the officers ofthe United States who have been appointed in this way the agents of the President when the President gives thera a coraraission, either a permanent or teOipo- rary one, to fill a vacancy or to fill an office? Are th© persoub so designated and appoihted his agents? Is he, bound hy everything they do? If thev take a bribe, is it a bribe to him? If they comrait ah assault and bat tery, is the assault and batteryoommitted by him? If they exceed their authority does he become liable? Why, not at all. If third parties are injured by tbem in the exercise of the power which hg has given thera, he can give third .parties the powcr to come back upon the President as the responsible party, on the principle ol respondent superior. Why there^is no principle of law or justice 'in it. H,e clothes hira not with his authority, hut with the authority of his office. A pnb lic officer is appointed; he ptauds under obligations not to his principal, not to the president, but to the law itself; aud if he does any act whicti Injures a third person, or violates auy law, it is be wno is responsible and not the President. Senators:— I should alraost apologize to this honor- rable court, composed as it is bq largely of lawyers, for arguing so clear a poiut. I understood the learned manager (Mri. Butler) to say that they expected here after to connect the President with these declarations , of General Thoraas. Mr. BUTLER— I did not say hereafter. Mr. STANBEgT— Doea the learned manager say that he has heretofore done it 7 Mr. BUTLER made an answer not heard by the re porters. Mr. STANBERT— Tou mean that you expect to do it, not tbat you have done it. I understood the gen tleman to say, in answer to the question put by the Senator, that he did expect to show a connection be tween the President and those declarations of General Thomas. If he did not say that he raeant nothing, or he raeant one thing and said another. I agree that there are exceptions to the introduction of testimony in cases of conspiracy, and perhaps in cases of agency, and that in extreme cases where it is irapossible to have preliminary proof given, the statement of the counsel, made ou their professional honor, is takeu that the testimony offered is intended to be introduc tory to the testiraony to be afterwards offered. But in this case we have heard no reason why the ordinary rule should be reversed, aud why testimony which IB prima facie inadraissible should be offered in the assurance that a foundation would be hereafter laid to it. What reason is there for this deviation from the ordinary rule? Is it a matter of taste for the conuBel to begin at the wrong end, and introduce what is clearly inadmifesible, aud to say: — "We will give you the superstructure first aad the foundation afterwards?" Was such a thing as that ever hear-1 of? I repeal that there may be extreme cases, founded on the direct assurance of counsel before a court, where the court will allow testimony which is prima facie inadmissible to be heard ou the statement that the counsel would afterwards connect it. I think it is hardly necessary for me to argue the question further. Authorities Demanded* Mr. Stanbery having sat dowu, Mr. BUTLER rose, aud asked that the usual rale be enforced, that counsel, in making their arguments, shall cite the authorities ou which the arguraents rest. The Cbief Justice remarked tbat that was un- doubtedlv the rule. ^ Mr. STANBERT said :~Mr. Chief Justice, we will allow this question to stand without citing autho rities. Mr. Butler's Reply. Mr. BUTLER then rose aud said:— Mr. President and Senators:— The gravity of the question presented to the Seuate for its decision has induced the Presi dent's counsel to argue at length, kuowiug that largely on that question, and on the testimony to be adduced under it on one of these articles of irapeach raent, the fate of their client must stand. It is the great question, and, therefore, I must ask the atten tion ol the Senate and of the presiding officer, aa well I may, to sorae considerations which, in ray mind, determine It. But, before I do that, I beg leave to state the exact status of the case up to the point at which the question is propounded. And I may say, without offeafle to the learned counsel for the Presi dent, that in making the objectioa, they have entirely ignored the answer of the President. It appears, tben, that on or about the 12th of August latft, the President conceived the idea of removing Edwin M. ¦ Stanton from the' offlce of Secretary of War, at all hazards, clairaing the right and power te do so against the provisions of the act known as "the Civil Tenure of Offlce act." Therefore the decision of the question in one of its aspects will decide the great question here at issue at this hour, which is, is that act to be treated as a law? . Is it an act of Cougress, valid and not to be infringed by the act of auy executive Officer? Because, if that is a law; then the President adraits that he undertook to remove Mr. Stanton in violation of that law, and that he isSWd the order to General Thoipas for that purpose only. His palliation is, that he did so to make a judicial case. But he Intended to issne the order to General Thoraaa, and General Thomas wae to act under it iu violation of the provisions of that act. Am I not right on this proposition? That belrig so, then we have the President on his side intending toiviolatfe the law, and we have him theaissning'the order in violation of She law. We have him theu call ing to his aid in tne violation of that law, an offlcer of the army. Now, then, in the light of that law, what ia the next thing we find? We find that tbe President issued au order lo General Thomas to take possession of the War Departraent. Counsel Say that it is au order in the usual form. I take issue with them. There are certain ear-raarks about that order which show that it is not in the usual form. It Is in the words of an Imperative comraaudi It^Rnot "Tou are authorized and empowered to take possession of the War Depart ment, etc., hut it is, "Toa will immediately enter upon 70 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. .th^ discharge of the dutiea pertaininff to that ofiice." Now, then, we must take , another thing which ap pears iu this case beyond all posisibility ot cavil, and tbat is, that the President knew at the time that Mr. Stanton had claimed the rieht,- on the 12ih of August, not to be put out of that offlce, and that when he went out of it, that he notified the President solemnly that he only went ont in obedience to superior force. The President; had authorized the General of the armies of the United States to take possession of the office, and that for all legH purposes, and for all ac tual purposes, was equivalent to his using the whole of the army of the United States to take possession ; because if the General of the Army thonaht that the order was legal, he had a right to nse the whole of tho army ot the United States to carry it ont. Therefore I say that the Preaident was notifled that Mr. Stanton had only yielded, on leaving that office at first, to su perior force. Mr. Stanton had yielded wisely and patriotically, because if he had not yielded a collision might have beeu brought on, which would have, in the language of the late EeBels— and General Thomas belongs to them— "raised a civil war." Now, then, the President knew that Mr. , Stanton at first said, "I only yield this offlce to superior force." Mr. Stanton having yielded the offlce, the General of the Army had, in obedience to the Bigh behests of the Senate, restored it to him, and Mr. Stanton had been reinstated in it, in obedience to the high behests of the Senate. Thua he lelt that he was still more fortified than at first. It he would not yield at first on the 12th of August, 1867, except to superior force, do you believe. Senators— is any man so besotted as to believe — that tbe President did not know that Mr. Stanton meant to hold it agaiust everything but force? He had seen Mr. Stanton sustained by the vote of the Senate. He had seen that au attempt to remove hira was illegal and unconstitutional, and theu, for for the pnrpose of bringing this to the issue, the Pre sident of the United States Issued his order to Geu. Thomas, another offlcer of the army, "Tou will im mediately , enter npon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that offlce." What then! He had come to the conclusion to violate a law, and to take posses sion of the War Offlce. He had sent the order to Gen. Thomas, and General Thomas had agreed with him to take possession ofthe office by some means. iThus we have the agreement between two minds to do an unlawful act, and that, I believe, is the defini tion of conspiracy all over the world. Let me repeat it; you have the agreement between the Fresideut, on his part, to do what has been declared an unlawful act, and you have General Thomas conseuting to do it, and therefore you have an agreement of two mipds tu do an unlawful act; and that, 1 say, makes a con spiracy, so far as I understand the law. So, that on that conspiracy we shall rest this evidence under ar- ticle'seventh, which allsges that Andrew Johnson did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, with iutent unlawfully to seize, take and possess the pro perty of the-United States iu the Department of War, Then there is another gronnd on which this testi mony can stand, and that is on the ground of princi pal and agent. Let me examine that ground, if you please. - He claims that every Secretary, every Attor ney-General, every offlcerSoI this government lives by his will, npon his breath only, are his servants ouly, and are responsible'to him alone, not to the Senate or to Congress, or to either branch of Congress. They are respofisible to him. He appoints them to such offlces as he choses, and he claims this ^ttgM inimita bly, and he says in his message to yon of the 2d of March, 1868, that if auy one of his secretaries had said to him that he could not agree with him on the constitutionality of the act of March 2, 1S6T, he would have turned, him out at once. All tliat had passed General Thomas knew as well as anybody else. Now, then, what is the Secretary's commission, whether ad interim or permanent? It is that "he shall perform and execute snch ddties as, from time to time, shall be enjoined upon him or intrusted to hira by the President ot the United States, agreeably to the Constitntion, relative to the land aud naval forces; or to such other matters respecting the mili tary and naval forces as the President of the United States shall assign to the department ;" and that "the said principal offlcer shall condoot the business of such department as the President, from time to time, Bhall order or direct." Therefore, his commission is to do precisely as the President desires him. to do, anything which pertains to the offlee ; arid hp stands there as the agent ot his principal. To do what? What was Mr. Thomas authonzed to do by the President? It was to obtaiii the War Offlce. Was he authorized to do anything else that we hear of at that time? No. What do ive propose to show? Havin" , shown that he was anthorized to take it; having shown that he agreed with the President to take itT h.ivingpntin tisstimony that the two are connected together in the pui-suit of one common object, the Pre sident wanting General Thomas to get in, aud Gene ral Thomas wontiflg to get in, and both agreeing and concertins means together to get iu, the question is, by every rule of law, after we have shown the acts, the declarations, however naked they ma? be,_ of either of these two parties, about the common object. Th« yery question we propose is to ask the general decla rations of General Thomas about the common object. Now, the case dcies not indeed stop here, becanse we ehall show that he was then talking about the com mon object. We asked Mr. Bnrlogh if he was a friend of General Thomas. He said "Yes." If they were in timate. "Yes." , . „ I have already told yon that Burleigh was a friend of the PresidAit. That he needed somebody to aid in this enterprise. There was to be some moral support to the enterprise, and we propose to show that General Thomas was endeavoring lo got one or two membera of the Honse of Eepresentatives to support him in thie enterprise, and was laying out a plan ; and that he asked him to go with him and support him in the enterprise, and be there aiding and abetting. This is the testimony we propose to ahow, and that is the way we propose to connect hira with the enterprise. That is the exact condition of things. Now the proposition is, having shown the common object, when lawful or unlawful, makes no difference, but, as we contend, au unlawful object ; having shown tbat the act of the two parties was one thing; having ehown the arj^'ument of one with the other to do the act, can we not put in the declaration of both parties in regard to that act? Does not the act of one be come the act of the other? Why have not my learned friends objected to what was said to Mr. Stanton? The President was not there. General Thomas was not upon oath. Why did not we put in the act of General Thomas there yesterday? It was because of what he was doing in relation to the thing itself. Mr. STANBERY— It was within the authority. Mr, BUTLEK— Ah ! that was within the authority. How was it within the authority? It was within the authority because the President had commanded him to take possession. Now, then, we wish to know the means by which he was to take possession. How was that to be done. and what was It to bo done with? They say— and only for the gravity of the occasion I could not help think ing it a tremendous joke— they sav you should call the other conspirator, on the threat of one conspirator to show the conspiracy. Was that ever done in auy court, one cofl^pirator to turn king's witness, or state's wit ness against the other? Was that ever done? Never, eir. Mr. BUTLER here quoted from Eoscoe's Criminal Evidence, 390, in order, h^ said, to show that they were not'hound to put iu all their evidence at once, and that from the acts and declarations of tbe crimi nals themselves they conld prove the conspiracy. He also read from 12 Wheaton, 469 and 470, the case of a slaver fitted out at Baltimore for the West Indies, wherein the declaration of one of the principals was admitted in evidence, to show the object of the voy age. It was agreed that the object in this case was to get the War Department at all hazards. It was ad mitted lu the answer. The conspirators had been no tified that Stanton would not deliver it, exceut by force. They then set out to provide ways and means. It would be shown that at thia very conversation Thomas declared that If he had not been arrested he would have used force. Were they, then, to bo told that the Preaident oould do thia and that, and vet that they conld not put in what the agent said. While ha was pursuing this matter, suppose 'Thomas had gone to General Emory and said he wanted him to take this department hy force, as no doubt he intended to do, until he found the hand of the law laid upon him. They expected to show by theso declarations and to leave no doubt in the mind of any Senator what tJiis purpose was. He (Mr. Butler) thonght there was ho douTit in the mind of any mail what that purpose was. The learned counsel for the respondent had «ald th6y had now got toa. qnestion of law fit to be argued by lawyers to lawyers. Implying that all other ques tions argued in this high courthave not been-fit to be argued either by lawyers orto lawyers. It was for IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. n them to defend themselves against that sort of impu tation. He had supposed the great questions tbey had been arguing were not only flt to be argned by lawyers to lawyers, hat by statesmen to statesmen. He insisted that this was not a question-^^to he nar rowed down to the attorney*i office, but one to be viewed in the light of law, in the light of jncispru- pradence bythe Senate of the United States. Thia was not a case where the court raight go one way and the jury another. They were both court and jury, and he held that they ihould receive testimony la re gard to aH the acts aud declarations ot this Secretary ad interim. In tbia view the managers were fortunate In being sustained by tbe precedents. The Qnestion. Mr. CTTETIS, of counsel, asked for the reading of the question. The Secretary road as follows:— "Tou said yester day, in answer to ray question, that you had a conver sation with General Lorenzo Thoraas on the evening ef the 2l8t of f'ebruary last. State If he said any thing by which he intended to obtalp, or was directed hy the President to obtain, possession of the War Department ? If so, state all that he said as nearly as yoa can. Remarks of Itlr. Curtia. Mr. CURTIS— Mr. Chief Justice:— It will be ob served that this question contains two distinct branches. The first Inquires of the witness for de clarations of General Thoraas respecting hie own intent. The second inquires of the witness for de clarations of General Thomas respecting instructions ^ven to him by the President. Now, in reference to the first branch — that is, the Independent intent of General Thomas hiraself— I am not aware that that subject matter la anywhere an is^ue. General Thomas is not on trial. It ia the President who is on tnal. Itis his intent or purpose; his directions ; the unlawful means which he is charged with having adopted and endeavored to carry into effect, which conatitate the criminality of these charges which re late to this subject, and, therefore, it seems to be that it is a eufficient objectioa to the first part of this ques tioa that it relates to'a subject raatter wholly imraa- terialnn this case, iu regard to which the most legiti mate evidence which could be adduced ought iu uo manner to effect the Case of the President, because the President is not charged here with auy ill inten tions or illegal intentions of General Thomas. Bat he is charged here with reference to his own illegal iateutiouB and views solely, for with thera alone can he be charged: and, therefore, X respect fully subrait, Mr. Chief Justice, that that hrauch of the questioQ which seeks to draw into this case Inde pendent of the evidence, the intentions of General Thomas, aside ft'om instructions given to him, or views communicated to hira by the President hiraself, is utterly iraraaterial, and ought not to be allowed to be proved by anv evidence, whether competent or in competent. In the next place, I submit tbe evidence which is o£fered to prove the intention of General Thomas, if that fact were in Issue here, and had been proved for auy effect upon the President's case, is not Admissible in this trial. Tho intent of a party, as every la^Myer knows, is a fact, and it is a fact to be proved by legal, admissible evidence, juat as much as any other fact. Itis coraraon for a person not a lawyer to say that the true way to ascertaia a raan's intent is to take what he Bays as hia intent, because when It is ex pressed that ia the best evidence. AU that Is true. But inasmach as he is noe sworn before us— inaamuch^ as It is not given by him ou the stand in the presence of the accused, with an opportunity for cross-exami nation— unless yon can bring the case within one of the exceptions which exist inthe court (oneof thera, as has been said by my associate, being tbe case of principal and a^ent, the otber being the case of co- conspiratora), I do not propose to go over tbe grounds which were so clearly pat, as it seems to me, by ray associate. I think It must have been understood perfectly well the grounds upon which it Is our intention to rest these declarations of General Thomas that he was not the agent of the President; that he received from his stiperior officer an order to do a certain thing, and iu no aense thereby became the agent of that superior of ficer, nor did that superior offlcer become accountable for the manner in which he was carrying out tbat or der, and that this is moet specially tme when the na ture ofthe order Is the designation of one public of ficer to occupy another public office and discbarge its duties, lu which case, whatever the designated per .son docs he does on his own account, and by force of his own view?,. unless he baa received sorae SDecial in structions in regard to the mode of carrVlng it out. We subrait, then, in the first place, that the inten tions of General Thomas are immaterial, and the Pre sident cannot be affected by thera. Secondly, if they were material they must be proved by sworn evi dence, and not by hearty statements. The other part of the question appears to me to admit of a little ques tion. It la proposed to inquire of the witness what was said by General Thomas respecting directions or in- fitrnctions given to him by the President, which pre sents the naked case of an attempt to prove the autho rity of an agent by the agent's own declarations. The question is whether the President gave instruc- ¦ tions to General Thomas in regard to the particalar manner or means by which this order was to be car ried out. Udou its facts the order Is intelligible. We anderstandlt to be in the usual form. There ia no allusion made to the exercise of force, threats or in timidation of auy kind. Now they propose to super add to this written order by means of the declarations of the agent himself, that he had authonty to use threats, intimidation or force, and no lawyer will aay tbat that can be done, nnless there is first laid the foundation for it by showing that the parties were con nected together as' conspirators. I agree that if they could show a conspiracy between the President and General Thomfts, to which these de clarations relate, then the declaration of one of thera in reference to the subject raatter of that conspiracy wonld be evidence against them. Now, wh«t is the case as it stands before yoa> and as was acceuted by the honorable raanager himself? He starts out with a proposition that the President, in his auswer, has admitted his intention to remove Mr. Stanton from office. That, he says, waa an illegal intention; that, he says, was an intention to carry out by meaus of the order givea to General Thomas, and when the Presi dent, he says, gave that order to General Thomfls, aud General Thoraas accepted it and undertook to exe cute it, there was an asrreemeut between them to do an illegal net. Well, wbat was the illegal act? We have got what he called conspiracy to remove Mr. Stanton, and if that be contrary to the Tenure of Office law, that is an Illegal act, I agree ; but is that the illegal act which they are now undertaking to prove ' Is that the ex tent of the conspiracy which they are now under taking to show? Not at all. They are going alto gether beyond that. They now undertake to say that the President con spired with General Thomas, by various threats or in timidations, to commit a totally distinct crirae uuder the conspiracy act. Tet they have shown only Hn agreemeut to remove Mr. Stanton; and with the lirait of the conspiracy, as tbey call it, circurascribed within the intention raerely to remove Mr. Stanton, they now attempt to prove the assumption of a con spiracy to remove hira by force ; that is, without hav ing proved a conspiracy to reraove hira without force, they ask leave to give in evidence the declarations of these co-conspirators to show a conspiracy to remove hira with force. I respectfully submit that they must first show the conspiracy whlGih they, themselves, pretend they have giveu evidence of; as soon as they get to the limit of that conspiracy of which they allege they have given some proof, let them then show this totally different conspiracy, naraely:— A conspiracy to turn out Mr. Stanton by force. They raust produce sorae evidence of that other conspiracy, before they can use the de clarations of other parties as evidence against tbem. But, sir, I do not think that tbis should be permit ted. It is an entire misconception of tbe relations between these two parties of the Commander-in- Chief and the subordinate officer, the one receiving an order frora the other; there ia no evidence here tending to prove any conspiracy. The learned mana ger (Mr. Butler) hae said that an agreement between two persons to do an unlawful act is a Conspiracy. Well, it may be, but when the Comraander-in-Chlef gives au order to a subordinate officer to do an act, and the subordinate officer assents or goes to do it, ia that done by agreeraent? Does it derive its force and character and operation from any agreement between them ? any concurrence in their minds, by whioh th'e two parties agree toge ther to accomplish aomething, which, without that agreement, 'Could not be done ? Is it uot as plaia as day that military obedience is not conspiracy, aud IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. cannot be coniniracy 7 Is it not as plain as day that it is the duty of a subordinate ofljcer, when he receives ap order from his commanding offlcer, to execute that order 7 General Thomas obeyed the order of the President on the grouud of military obedience; was that a con spiracy? There can be no nuch thing as a con spiracy between the commauder-ln-chlef and the snliordinaie officer. He is not liable for the fact th.it the commander-in-chief issues the order, .ind the subordinate oflicer obeys it. I there fore respectfully submit that the houoralile managers have not only not proven teven .1 conspiracy to remove Mr. Stanton by force, but they have oflfered no evidence to prove any cony)iracy at all. It rests exactly where the written orders place it — an order from a superior offi cer to an inferior oificer, and an assertion by him to execute Jhat order. It has been said by the manager in the course of his argument, that jf we took his view of the case wo ought to have objected to the testi- i^ouy of the declarations of General Thomas made wheu he weut into the War Department on Saturday, the 22d of February. We could not make an objec tion to the testimony of what he then said; That WHS competent evidence. He was there in pursuance of the order given to him by the President. He was doing what the Preei dent authorized him to do, namely, delivering an order to Mr. Stanti>n, he beiug for that purpose merely the messeuger of tbe President, aud having executed that, he was to tiike podsetisiou under the other order. Of ctiurse the Piesident authoiized him to demand pos- Bosion, aud that deiniind was ns much an act capable of proof and proper to be proved as any other act done in the matter. Therefore we could have made no such exception as would have fallen within the rauge of any of the exceptions which we now take. The learned manager relies also upou certain au thorities which he tuts produced in books. Tiie first is a case iu Hoscoc's Criminal Law, page 690, showing that 4inder some circumstauces the conspiracy may be proved before the persOu on trial had joined the conspiracy. I see no ditficulty in that. The first thing is to prove the conspiracy which is a separate aud in- dependeni fuel. Now, in that case the government uuderiook to show iu the fit'st place that there w.as a c«>usplracy, and had proved it by testimony as to the assembling together of a body of men for the purpose of militia training, &c. Having proved "the conspiracy, they theu gave evi dence to show that the defendant had subsequently formed the conspiracy. That was all relevant aud proper. It the managers will take the first step here and, in support of, their articles, will show, by evi dence, a conspiracy existing between the President and General Thomas, then tbey may go on giving evidence of the de^laralious of one or both of them, aud until they do, I submit that they caunot give suclx evidence. The case in "3 Carrington, cited by the manaf^ers, wus the case of a joint act of three persons falsely imprisoning a fourth. There waa a conspiracy — ^there was a false impri- eouineut — the immediate act done in pursuance of the couspiracy, aud the court decided in that case that a declaratiou, made subsequent to the imprisonment, as to what were the intentions of one of the conspira tors might be giveu iu evidence against the others. The case cited from 12th Wheaton was one where the owiier ot a ship, having authorized the master to fit out the vessel as a slaver, the declarations of the master were given in evidence, to show the object and purpose ofthe voyage. Unquestionably if he had made bim his agent to carry ou a sailing vovage, he had made him his agent for the purpose of domg all acts necessary to carry it out, aud what was the act that was giveu iu evidence? ! It was an attempt to engage a person to go on the voyage lu a subordinate position. In the course of that attempt the master stated to him what the cha racter and purpose of the voyage were, so thatthe case falls within the lines of the authorities and prin ciples ou which we rest. We submit, therefore, to the Senate that neither of these questions should be allowed, to beuut to the witness. I ought to say that the statement by the m:iii:iger that the ansvver of the President admits his ;uteution to remove Mr. Stanton from offlce illegally aud at all hazards is not so. The manager is mistaken if ho has so read the answer. The answer distinctly says that the President believed, after the gravest con sideration, that Mr. Stanton's case was not within the Tenure of 0/fice act ; and the answer further says that he never authorized General Thomiis to employ threats, force or intimidation. If tlie' manager is m refer to the answer as an evidefic* for One pnrpose be must take it as it stands. Argument of JHr. Binffham. Mr. BINGHAM, one of the Jnanaffets, next rose to miake an argument in sunport of the ruling of the Chief Justice. He said, I have Ustened to the leafned counsel who have argued in support bf the objection. Admitting their premises, it would be bnt just to them and just to myselfH;o Bay that their conclusions fol low, but I deny their prenJises. There is nothing in thereoord to justify their assuming here for thepnt-- pose of this question, th.it we are restricted to the ar ticle which alleges t^at this conspiracy was to be exe euted by force. There is nothin" in the case as it stands before tbe Senate which justifies the assumption that the Senatp is to be restricted in tho decision of this qnestion to the other article, which alleges that this conspiracy was to be executed by threats or Intimidation. There is nothing in the question propounded by my associ ate to the witness, which justifies the assumption made here that the witness is to testify chat any force wi^ to be employed at>ll. Though if he were so to testify'! contend ou all the authorities that it is admissible. The Senate will notice that in Articles there line allegation of force; no. allegation of threats, or intimi' ' datiod. Article 6 simply alleges an unlawful conspi racy entered into between the accused aud General Thomas to violate the Civil Tenure of Offlce act. My associate was right in all his authoritiea, that if two or more agree together to violate a law of the land it is a conspiracy. In Article 5 there is no averment of force or threat or intimidation, but simply au alleja^- tion that a conspiracy was entered into between the accused, Lorenzo Thomas and other persons unknown to preveut the execution of the Tenure of Ufflce act. 'That rule declares that auy iuterferenee with its provisionB is a misdemeanor; and, of course, if a com bination be entered into between two or more to pre vent its execution that combination itself amounts to a conspiracy. The counsel have succeeded moat ad mirably in diverting the attention ot theSenate from the question which underlies the admissibility of this evidence, and which controls i£. * I refer now specifically to article B-, in which we claim this question arises. That article alleges thSit said Audrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of tbe high duties of his office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, and oa ¦ divers other days and times in such year, before the 2d day of March, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspify with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Kepresentatives uuknown, to prevent and hinder the execution of au act entitled an act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, passed March 2, 1867, and in pnrsuance of said conspiracy didunlawfnlly attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stantoo, then and there being Secretary for the Department of ^ar, duly appointed and commissioued under the law of the Uaited States, from holding said offlce, whereby the said Audrew Johnson, Bresident of the Uuited States, did theh and there commltund was guilty of high misdemeanors in offlce. Now, the Tenure of Offlce act recited In that article expressly, that pereons holding civili offlce at the time of its enactment, who have heretofore been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who ehall thereafter be appointed to any snch offlce, and shall be duly qualified to act therein, is .ind shall be entitled to. hold said office until bis successor shall have been in like manner ap poiuted aud duly qualified, that is to say, by and with the advice and Consent of the Senate. The act then provides that the President of the United States may, during the recess fif the Senate, 'on evidence satisfactory to the President, showing that an officer is guilty of tuisdomeaaor in offlce, suspend such officer and designate some other person to per- iformthe duties nntjl' the' case be acted on by the Senate ; ahd that if the Senate shall concur in such suspension, and consent to the removal of that offlcer, it shall so certify to the President, who may tberet Iipon remove such offlcer and appoint another. Bilt If the Seuate shall refuse to concur, such offlcer so ap pointed shall forthwith rosame the functions of his office. ' The sixth seetion of ths same act providMrtbst every removal; appointment or employment made coutraiy to ths provisions of the act, shall be deebei IMPEACHMENT OP ^ANDREW JOHNSQN. 13 to he a high misdemeanor. The conspiracy entered into here between the two. parties, was to prevent the execution of that law. This is ao plain that no man can mistake it. The'President, in tbe presence of ^is tribunal, nor General Thomaa either, can shelter himaelf by the intimation that it was a railitary order to a subordinate military officer, I wish to show, in tbe presence of the Senate, that if that were so it would be competent for the President ofthe United States to shelter himself or any of his subordinates by issuing a military order to-raorrow, directed to Adjutant-General Thomas, or any other officer of the Array of tbe United States, to depose the Congress of the nation. This is an afterthought. It is no military order. It, is a letter of authority Within the express words of the statutes, and in violation of it. The evidence Is that General Thomas accepted and acted on It. The evidence was given yesterday, and was received without objection. It Is now too late to make the objection. It la perfectly justifiable iu this tribunal for me to sny further, and to say it on my own. honor as one of the managers of tbe House, that we rely not simply on the declaration of General Thomas to show the purpose of the accused to disregard this statute— to viwlate its plaia provisions— but we ex pect, by the writteu confession of the accused him self, to show to this Senate thds dny, or as soon thereafter as can be done, that his declared deter mination in any event was to deny the authority of \h# Senate. ¦ There was ho intlmati&n , given to the Senate of this intended interference; the President grasped the power in bia own handa, as if repealing the law ofthe nation, and challenging the j.^epresentat^ve6 of the nation to bring him to tuis bar to answer ; and now, yvhen we attempt to progress with the trial, according to the kuowiiiand established rales of evidence in all courts of jastice, we aro met with the plausible and ingenious— more plausible, aud raore ingenious than some remarks of the learned counsel for the accused — that the declaration of one co-conspirator cannot be given in evidence against another, as to the mode of executing the conspiracy. . I state it perhaps a little more strongly than the counsel did ; but that was eyactly the significance of his remarks. I would like to know whence he de rives any such aathorlty. A declaration made, the exe cution of a conHpiracy by a co-conspirator is admisi- ble even as fo the mode In which he would execute and carry out the design. It is not admissible siraply agaiust hiuipelf, but admissible against his co-cou- spirators. . , It is admissible against them, not to establish the original conspiracy, but to prove the intent aud pur pose ofthe couspirators. The conspiracy is coniplete whenever the agreement is entered iuto to violare tbe law, no raatter whether, an overt act be committed afterwardSkin pursuance of it or not. But the overt acts which are committed afterwards by any one of the conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy is evi dence agaiust him and against his co- conspirators. That is precisely the ground on which the ruling was made, yc8lerday,,by the presiding officer of the court. That is the ground on which we stand to-day. 1 quite agree with the learned counsel for the accuped, that the declaration of a purpoae to do some ^ct inde pendent of the original design of the conspiracy, aud to commit some Bubseijueut independeut crime, is evidence against no person but himself. But how can the Senate judge ot that wheu not one word haa dropped frora the lips of the witness, as to how the conspirators were going to carry the .conspiracy iuto e^ect. General Thomas was in pe^ectr accord with, tbe accused, aa he entered on.tbis duty. He did uot act that day as Adjutant-General; he acted as Secre tary of War ad interim. He so denominated himaelf iu the presence of the Secretary. He d'eclared he was Secretary of War in accordance With the authority which he carried ou his person, and now we are to be told that, because he is 'not on trial at this tribunal, his declaration caunot be ad mitted as testiraony, while the connsel hiraself As read the text going to show that if ihey were jointly indicted, as they raay be hereafter, in pursuance of the judaraentof this tribunal, this declaration lyould be clearly admissible. Lorenzo Thomas la not a civil officer of the government, and: cannot De Impeached ; the power of the House of Representatives canuot ex tend beyond the President, Vice President and other civil officers. To be. sure, Mr. Thomas claims, to be a civil officer, and he is oufl^ The .President pf the TTuited States has proven by this combination with him, to repeal the staiutes and the Constitution of this country. t bave thus spoken for the purpose of showing the significance and importance which the counsel for the accused attach to it. Itis not siraply that they de sire that this testimony shall be ruled out, but tbey desire to get in in some shape a judgraent on the part of theSenate ou the main question, whether Andrew Johnson is guilty of a crime, even though It be proved hereafter that bis pnrpose was to defy the flnal judg ment pf the Senate Itself, and the authority of tno law. 1 understand from the Intimatiira of oue of his counsel, that if this were a conspiracy, then the ac- cepEUnce by General Grant of the appointment as Secretary of War ad interim, was' also a couspiracy, Tbe Senate win see very clearly that that does not follow. It involves a very diff'erent question, forthe reaaon that the Senate expressly authorizes the Pre sident, for reasona satisfactftry to hiraself, during the recess of the Seuate, to suspend the Secwtary of War aud to appoint a Secretary ad .intf.rim, ou the condi tion, nevertheless, that he should, within twentv daya after the next session ofthe Senate, report bis action, with the evidence therefor, ahd ask the decision Of fhe Senate, He did so act. There was no conspiracy in that action of his, and it is not alleged that he did not thus recognize the obligations of the law, and did sus pend the Secretary of War, and did appoint a Secre tary ad interim,, and did, within twenty days, there- after, is comoetent for any other court of jastice iu the trial of cases where a question of doubt arises, to hear the evlden'ce, and afterwards, as tbe Senators are judges both for the law and of the facts, they may dismiss so much of it aa is found incompeteilt. I insist thnt there is no particle qf law in which this testiraony can be now excluded. Senator JOHNSON sent to the Secretary a slip of paper, which was read, as follows:— The honorable raanagers are requested to aay whe ther evidence here after 'will be produced to show- , lat. That the President before the time when the declarations as which they propose to prove were ra ad«, authorized him to obtain possession of the offica by force, threats, or intimination if necessary. 2d. That the^fi'esidentha^ knowledge that such declara- tiuiM had' been raade and had approved of them. Mr..BINGSAjil, on hphalf ot the managers, said, I ara instructed by my asso^iiates, and I am iu accord with them, that we do not deem it our duty to make answer to so personal a question ias tbat, and it will certainly occur to the Senate why we should not doit. ' Mr. EVARTS rose to close the discussion, bnt Mr. BINGHAM raisied the question, that under the rule liraiting discussion on interlocutory questioris the hour of the counsel for the President had expired, and that, at all events, the right to close the discus sion lay with the raanagers. The Chief Justice remarked that the twentieth rule made a limit aa to time, and the twenty-first rale made a lirait as to tbe persons who might address the court. He waa not certain whether th«;, llmit_. of one hour applied to each counsel who sppKe, ot to all the coun sel on one side, and he proposed to have that point ^ decided by tbe Senate. The Chief Jastice pat the question as to whether the twentieth rale should be- liudesstood as limiting discussion on interlocatory questious to one hour on u IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW ¦ JOHNSON. e^ch side, and it was decided affirmatively withont a division. Senator CONKLING, then moved that the counsel for the Presiaent having been under misapprehension aa to the application of the rule, have oermisslon iu this instance to siibmit any additional remarks they desire to make. Mr. EVAKTS remarked that the counsel for the President did not understand that .they had yet occu pied three full hours in debate. The Chief Justice remarked that thej had. Mr. EVARTS siaid that they did not desire to tran scend the rule, but that they supposed that they had still some few moments unoccupied. He had reason, however, with the intention.of claimins: only, as part of the counsel for the President, the right of closing as well as opening, according to ordinary rules of inter locutory discussion. Senator CONKLING theriupon withdrew his mo tion. . The Chief Justice directed the Secretary to read the qnestion to which objection was made, and it was read, as follows :^ Question proposed by Mr. BUTLER— You said yes terday, in answer to my question, that you had a con versation with General Thomas on the evening of Febrnay 21. State if he said anything as to the means by which he intended to obtain or was directed by the President to obtain possession ot the War Depart ment? State all he said, aud as nearly as you can. Senator DRAKE claimed that the yeas and^nays must be taken ou ali questions under th6 rule. The Chief Justice decided that it would not be ne cessary to have the yeas and nays taken, unless de manded by one-flfth of the members present. Seuator JOHNSON remarked that the question which he had submitted had probably not been heard by all the members of the Senate, and he asked that it be read again before the vote be taken, . Mr. BOUTWELL remarked, on behalf of the mana gers, that they had declined to answer the question because it seemed to them in the nature of an argu ment. The vote was taken on allowing the question put by Mr. Butler to the witness to be asked, and it resulted yeas, 39; nays, 11 ; as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Anthony, Caraeron, Cattell. Chandler, Cole, Conkling, ConncBS, Corbett, Cragin, Drake. Ed munds, Ferry, FesBcnden, Fowler. Freliughuyaen, Grimes, Henderson, Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), Monill (Vt.), Nays.- Messrs. Bayard, Buckalow, Davia, Dixon, Doo little, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson (Tenn.) and Vlckera-U. The witness W. H. Burleigh was recalled and ex amined by Mr. Butler. You said yee, to-day, in answer to my question that you had a conversation with General Thomas on the evening of the 2lBt of February. State if he said any thing as to tbe means by which he inteuded to obtain, or was directed by the Fr.esideut to obtain, possession of the War Department. ' Witness — On the evening of the 21st of February I went to General Thomas' ; I invited Mr. Smith to go with me to his house (some portions of the testimony at this point were inaudible in the reporters' gallery) ; I told him I heard he had been appointed Secretary'of War, and he said he had been appointed that day ; I thiuk he said that after receiving his appoint raent from the President he went to the War Offlce to show his appointment to Mr. Stanton, &nd also bis order to take the office. He said that the Sec retary remarked to him — (here again the witness be came inaudible.) I asked him when he was going to take possession. He remarked that he woiild take possession next morning at 10 o'clock. I think he also said that he had issued some orders. He asked me to come and see him. I asked whether I would dud him in tbe Secretary's room, and he said y^s; that he wonld be there punctually at ten o'clock. Said I, suppose Mr. Stanton oh^ects to it. what would you do? llis reply was, that if Stanton objected, he would use force. Said I, suppose he bolts his doors against you. Said he, if he does, I will break them dowu. I think that was about all the conversation we had at the time. Q. Were you at the offlce at any time before he as sumed the duties of Secretary ad i-nterim, and after he assuiued the dutiea of Adjutant-General? A. Yes eir; I was there two or three times. Q. Did yoa hear him say anything to the offlcers or to the clerks of the department as to' what his Inten tions were when he came into control of the depart In reply to a question by Mr. Evarts, Mr. Butler replied that he referred to the time after General Thomas was restored to the office of Adjutant-Gene ral, and before he was appointed Secretary of War ad interim. . . , , ' Mr. EVARTS— Then your inquiry is as to deelaro, tions antecedent to tbe action ofthe President. Mr. BUTLER— The object is to show attempts on the part of Geheral Thomas to seduce ths officers of the War Department by telling them what he would do for them wheu he got control, precisely as Absa lom sat at the gates of Israel, and attempted to seduce the people from their allegiance to David, the King, by telling what he would 'do when he oame to ths throne. Mr. EVARTS objected to the question. TheSenate took a recess often minutes, after which Mr. Butler withdrew the question and put another, as follows : — ^ Q. I observe that you did not answer the whole of my qnestion. I asked you whether anything was said by him in that conversation as to the orders ho bad received from the President?' A. During the conversation General Thomas said he would uso force if necessary, and stated that he was required bythe President 'to take possession of the department, and that he was bound td obey the President, as his supe rior offlcer. This was in connection with the conver sation about force, and in connection with his making^ the demaud. Q. After General Thomas was restored to the offlce of Adjutant-General, did yon hear him make any statement to offlcers or clerke as to the rules or ordera of Mr. Stanton which he would revoke or rescind in favor of the offlcers or employees when he wonld have control of affairs there? Mr. EVARTS objected to the question, as irregular and immaterial to any issue in the case. 'Mr. BUTLER argued that it came within tbe, qnestion last discussed. He said, we charge thai the whole procedure of taking up this disgraofea officer aud restoring him to the War Offlce, kuowing that he was an old enemy of Mr. Stan ton's, who h.ad deposed him from his offlcial station, was part of tlie conspiracy. Mr. Thomas theu goes to seducing the clerks, to getting them ready to rely upou him wheu he should be brought into the War Office. Now I propose to show the acts of one of these co conspirators clustering about the point of time just beforS he waa going to break down dowii the doors. of the War Office with crowbars and axes, r I propose to show him endeavoring to seduce the clerks' and employees of the War Department from their alle- aiauce, and this entirely comes within the rule whicll. / is made. Mr. EVARTS said:— Mr. Chief Jnstice and Sena tors : — The question which led to the introduction of the statement of General Thomas to this witness as to his intentions, and as to the President's instructions to him (General Thomas), was based upou the claim that the order of the President on the 2l8t of February for the removal of Mr. Stanton and for Geueral Thomas to take possession of ths office, created and ia proved a conspiracy, and that thereafter, in that, proof, declarations and intentions will be given in evidence. That step has been samed in the judgment of this honororable court in conformity with the rules of law and evidence. That being gained, it Is solemnly argned that If no conspiracy is proved, you can introduce declarations made thereafter. You can, by the same rule, intro duce declarations made heretofore. That is the ouly argument presented to the court for the admission of. this evidence. So far as the statement of the learned managers relates to the offlce, the position, the chit- racter and the conduct of Geueral Thovas, It is suffl cient for me to say, that not one particle of evidence has been given in this case bearing on anv oue of those tdpics. n If General 'Thomas had been a disgraced offlcer ; if th«e aspersions and those revilings are just, thej, are not justifled by any evidence before this court. If, as a matter of fact applicable to tho situation on which this proof is sought to be mtroduced, tha former employment of Geheral Thomas and hia recent restoration to the active duties of Adjutant-General are pertinent, let them be proved, and then we have, at least, the basis of fact of General Thomas previous relation to the War Department, and Mr. Stanton, and to the offlce of Adjutant-General. IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW ' JOHNSON. 15 And now, having pointed ont to this honorable conrt that the declarations sought to be given in evi dence of General Thomas to affect thePresident, are confessedly of a period antqpedcnt to the date at Which any evidence whatevei' la beifdre this court, bringing the President and Geueral Thomas In con nection. I might leave it safely there; but what is there in the nature ot the general proof sought to De introduced which should affect the President of the United States with any responsibility for those gene ral and Tague statements of an dfficer of what he might and could or would do, if thereafter he shonld come into possession of the War Department. _Mr. BINGHAM rose and said :— Mr. President, I de sire to say a word or two in reply to the counsel. X am willing to concede that what may have been said by General Thomas before the transaction Is not ad missible. That is, however, subject to the exception that the Senate, b»ing the triers of the facts as welKas of the law, may allow declaratione of this sort to be proved. If there Is .any doubt that we, are permitted to show that some arrangement was entered into be tween those parties, or, if yon please, that a volun tary act was committed by General Thomas, In order to commend himself to the chief of the conspirators. The general rule is laid down in Roscoe, page 76, that the acts and declarations of other persons In the conspiracy may be given in evidence, if referable to the case, and yet I admit that if it was so remote as not in probability to connect itself with the transac tion, it ought not to be received. The testimony in this case indicates a purpose on the part of General IMiomas to make hia arrangements with the employees of the War Department. The Chief Justice— The Chief Justice Is of opinion that no sufficient foundation has been laid for the in troduction of this testimony, there having been no evidence as to the existeuce of a conspiracy prior to the time to which the question relates. I will ^ut the question to the Seuate if auy Senator demands it. Senator HOWARD demandc|l the question tO' be pnt. ' Mr. BUTLER rose and said that he was about to ask the Seuate If it would not relax the rule, sO as to allow the managers on the part of the House of Ke presentatives, when they have a qnestion which they deem of consequence to their case, to have the ques tion put to the Senate on the motion of the House of Representatives. The Secretary read, by direction of the Chief Jus tice, the question to which objection had been'mad^, and the Chief Justice put the question to tbe Senate, whether that should he allowed to be proposed to the witness. The vote was taken and resulted, yeas, 28 ; nays, 22, as follows :— Yeas.— Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler. Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin. Drake, Hender son, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Nye, Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Eoss, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer,' Tipton, Trumbull and Wilson —28. Nats— Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doo little, Edmunds, Forry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuy sen, Grimes. Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Mo.), Norton, Patterson (Tenn.), Sherman, Van Winkle, Vick ers, Willoy aud Williama— 22. So the qnestion was allowed^ and the examination was continued. Mr. BUTLER, however, modifying hia qnestion as follows:— (J. Were you presentatthe WarDepartment on the occasion referred to. A. I was. Q. Did you hear General Thomas make any statements to tbe officers and clerks, or either of them, belonging to the War Offlce, as to the rules and orders of Mr. Stapton or the offlce, which he (Thomas) would revoke, relax or rescind In favor of the government employees when he got control of the departmeut. If so, state what that converss,tjon was? A. Soon after, General Thomas was restored I visited his office and wanted him to take a walk with me ; this, I think, was not more than a week or teu days before his appointment as Secretary of War. Mr. EVARTS Interrupted the witness, and said tho question allowed by the Senate, he understood to re late to statements made by General Thomas, at the War Offlce, to clerks of the department, hut the wit ness was now going on to state what took place be tween himself and General Thomas. Tbe witness was allowed to proceed, and he stated- that General Thomas said ha had made arrangements for all the heads of divisions in the offlce to stop on| that morning,ia8 hefwanted to address them ; I offered to go out but he told me to remain, and four or five I officers brought their clerks in, and he made an ad dress to each company as they came in, stating that be did not propose toAold them strictly to the letter of their Instructions, but thot they might come and go as they pleased, as he would regard them as gen tlemen who would do their duty. Afterwards I, told the Geueral that be would make a flne politidlan, as I thought he understood human natnre ; he described the rules as harsh and arbitrary. General Thomas had been away from the Adjutant-General's Office fbr a considerable time ; he was sent South, I believe. Q. Since you heard this conversation about break ing down the doors of the War Office by forcb have you seen General Thomas ? A. Yes, I have. I gave my testimony before the Board of Managers, and General Thomas told me that he had been summoned before the mauagers. I saw him the other day. Various questions were pnt to witness to elicit a statement) of a recent conversation In which General Thomas had acknowledged the correctness of the evidence given by witness before the managers, but Mr. Evarts objected, but flnally the objections were overruled by the Chief Justice, and the witness pro ceeded as follows : — In the forepart of last week, on meeting General Thomas he said the > only thing that prevented him taking possession of the War Offlce was his arrest. Witness did not recollect what he said to General Thomas. Cross-examination by Mr. STANBERY. Witness had business with General Thomas ; at his interview at the War Department, prior to the ap pointment as Secretary of War ; had heard before that he was restored to his position as Adjutant-General ; saw there a number of the heads of buii^aus and their clferks ; could not name tbera; would not say how came in first; General Williams was present; General Thomas addressed each ofthe heads of the bureaus and clerks separately, to four or five of them making nearly the same address to each ; could not give the exact language, but It waa to the effect that he had come back to assume the duties of the office ; that ha was glad to see them; that he proposed to relax some what the arbitaary rules of the office ; that he did not wish to hold them to such a strict accountability; that he expected them to discharge their duties, and that was all lie cared about. Witness understood Geueral Thomas to mean by the office he had returned to, the office of the Adju tant-General ; did not nnderstand that General Thomas gave any' orders at that time; there were only heads of deoartments Connected with the Adju tant-General's office. Q. Did you hear or see anything improper at that time? A. I don't know that I ama jud'ge of what is proper or improoer in the Adjutant-General's office ; there was nothing verjr offensive. Samuel Wilkeson sworn direct. Examination by Mr. Butler. Q. Do you know Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-Gene ral of the United States army? A. I do. Q. How long have you known him? A. Between six aud seven years. Q. Have you had any conversation with him rela tive to the Change in the War Department? If so. state as near as yon can what it was. A. I had a cou. versation with him respecting that change on the 2lBt day ot February. , Q. What time In the day ? A. Between one and- two o'clock In the afternoon, Q. Where? A. At the War Department, at his office. . . „ . - Q. State what took place at this interview? A. I asked him to tell me what had occurred that morning between him ahd the Secretary of War,, in his endeavor to take possession of the War Department; he hesi tated to do so, until I told him tho town was fllled with rumors of the change that had been made and the removal of Mr. Stantion and the appointment of himself. He then said that since the affair had be come public ho felt relieved to speak to me abotit it. He drew froni his pocket a copy of the original order of the Preaident of the United States directing him to take possession of the War Department immediately. He told me that ho had taken, as a witness of his ac tion General Williams, and came tip in the War De- partment'and had shown to Edwin M. Stanton the or der of the Preaident, and had , demanded by virtue of that order the possession of the ¦ War Departmeut aud its books and papers. He told me that B M. Stanton, after reading the order, had asked bim If he would allow him sufficient time to gather 16 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. ogether his books, papers and other personal pro perty nnd take thera away with him ; that he told him he would allow hira all the necessary time to do so, and had then withdrawn ^from' Mr. Stanton's room. He further told me that day being Friday that the next da^ would be a "dies non," being Saturday, the anniversary of Washington's Birthday, when he had directed that the WarDepartment wpuld be closed; the next day was Sunday, and that on Mdnd.ay be Bhould demnnd possession of the War Department and its property, and if that deraand wns refused, or resisted, that he should apply to the General-in-Chief of theArmy for a force snfficient to enable hira to take possession of the War Department, and he added that he didn't see how the General of the Array could re fuse to obey his demand for that force. He then added that, under the order which thePreaident had given hira, he bad no election to pursue any other coarse than the one he had indicated ; that he was a subordinate oflScer, directed by anorder from a supe rior officer, and that he must pursue that coarse. Q. Did vou see hira afterwards, and have any con versation with him on the subject ? A. I d'd, sir. Q. When was that? A.^ That evening. ,Q. Where? A. At WillVrd's Hotel. Q. What did he say there? A. He then said that he should next day demand possession of the War Departmebt, and that if the demand was resisted, he would apply to General Grant for a force to enable him to take possession; and he also repeated his de claration that.hc couldn't see how General Grant could refuse to obey that demand for force. Q. Were these couversrftions earnest or otherwise on his part? A. Do you mean by earnestness that he meant what hj^ said? t^. Yes, A. Then they were in that sense, earnest. (Lauffhter.) Cross-examination by Mr. STANBERT. Witness stated that he had been a journalist by pro fession for a number of years; that be had been in "Washington during the sessions of Congress for the last seven years ; General Thoraas said he had issued , anorder to close the War Departraent on Saturday; did not say when it had been issued; conld not say whether it was issued by him as Adjutant-General or as Secretarv of War. By Mr. BUTLER— Q. State whether in either of these conversation he said that he was Secretary of War? A. Yes, air, he claimed to be Secretary of war. George W. Kassner, sworn.— Directexamination by Mr. BUTLER,— He said hewas a citizen of Delaware, and h.'id knnwu General Thomas ever since he had left West Point, and had lived in the same county with hira ; saw him about the Tth of March, in the East room pf the White House, at a levee about teu o'clock in the morning ; he Introduced himself to General Thomas, who did not recognize him; he told Thomas that the "eyes of Delaware were upon him," and would require him to stand firm; he replied that he would not disappoint his J'riends. and in a day oi' two he would "kick that fellow out ;" he did not men tion -any nnraes, but witness thought he referred to the Secretary of War. Witness.was cross-examined at great length by Mr. STANBERY, and his eccentric manner and responses created. bursts of laughter. Among other thiuga, he said:— Before I left him I renewed the expression of the wishes of Delaware. (Laaghter.) I first cora raunicated the conversation I had to Mr. Tanner, going along the street that night, and alsg to several others in Washington, and among the rest to a gen tleraan from Delaware naraed Smith, but his name was uot John. [The serio-comic manner of the witness kept the Seuate in a roftr during the examination, whicn was continned for sorae time, and led the Chief Justice to remark that the cross-examination was too protracted, , and served "no good purpose.] Mr. BUTLER proposed to ask this witness as to! General Thomas haviug been called hefore the board of managers after witness had been examined, and that the evidence was read to Geueral Thom^ and he hild assented to its correctness. Mr. CURTIS, one of counsel, objected, and after a short argument waived it for the present The court adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow, and tbe Senate went into Executiye aessioD, and soon afterwards adjourned. -^ PROCEEDINGS OF THURSDAY, APRIL 2. The Senate met at 12 o'clock, and the Chair was immediately vacated for the Chief • Justice, who said that the Sergeant-at-Arms will open the court hy pro- clamatioc. The Sergeant-at-Arms made the proclamation in due form, and at 12-10 the managers were announced and took their places, and In turn were immediately followed by about a dozen of the members of . the Honse of Representatives. , The journal was read. ^ The Seventh Rnle. 8 Mr. DRAKE (Mo.), immediatels after the readins ofthe journal was concluded, rose and said :— ^r. Pre sident, I send to the Chair, and ask the adoption of an amendment to the rules. The Secretary re^d the amendment, as follows :— To amend Rule 7 bv adding the follow'ins :— Upon alsBoli queations the votes shall be without a dcciFion, unleas tho veaa and naye be demanded by one-fifth- of the memhers preaent, aa required by the preaiding officer, wheu the same shall be taken. At the suggestion of Mr. DRAKE, Rnle 7 was read. It provides that the Chief Justice shall rule upon all questious of evidence and Incidental questions as in the first instance. ^ Mr. HENDRICKS (Ind.)— I suppose by the rules it atands over one day. The Chi<>f Justice— If any Senatar objects. Mr. CONKLING (N. T.)— Under what rule? A brief colloquy ensued between Messrs. Hen dricks and Coukling, which was inaudible In the re porters' gallery. The motion was then laid over. Karsner Itecalled. - Mr. STANBERT, of counsel, then rose and said:— Mr. Chief Justice,i before the managers proceed with another witness, wo wish to recall, for a moment, Mr. Karsner. Mr. BUTLER, of the managers— I submit that il Mr. Karsner is to be recalled — the examination and- cross-examination having* been flnished on hoth sides— he must be called as a witness for the respond* ent, and the proper time will be when they begin their case. . .J Mr. STANBERT— We will call him but a momentf Chief Jnstice to Mr. Butler — Have you auy objec* tions to his heing called? ,i Mr. BUTLER— No,.8ir. .George W- Knrsner took the stand again. By Mr. STANBERT— Q. Mr. Karsner. where did you stay that night on the 9th of March, afteryon had the conversation with General Thomas? A. 1 stayed at the house of my friend, Mr. Tanner. Q. What is the employment of Mr. 'Tanner? A. 1 belieye be Is engaged in one of the departments in Washington. Q. In, which, A. I think the War Departraent. Q. Do you recollect whether or not the next mom ing you accompanied Mr. Tanner to the War Depart ment? A. I don't recollect that ; sometimes I SI4 sometimes, I. didn't; sometimes I was engaged ; other times I did accompany .him. CJ. At any' time di^ yon go to the War Department to aee Mr. Stanton with regard to yonr testimony? A, I saw Mr. Stanton. Q. What about? A. Nothing in particular ; only 1 was introduced to hira. Q. Who by? A. Mr. Tanner. Wliy be Wanted to See Mr. Stanton. Q. What was your object in seeing him? A. Well, I had seen all the, great men in Washington, and I wished to see Mr. Stanton. Q. In that convereation with Mr. Stanton wasiny reference made to your conversation with General Thomas? A. I think there was. Q. Didn't you receivea note from Mr. Stanton «t that tiine— a memoranda? A. No sir. . Q. Did he give you any direction where to go? A No sir. _Q. Did he speak about your being examined asn witpess before the committee, or that yon. should be? A. There was something to that effect. Mr. STANBERT— That's Ml. Mr. BUT'LER— That's all, Mr. Karsner. IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 11 Coneressman Ferry's Testimony. Thomas W. Ferry, naember of Congrese from Michi gan, was next called, aud being sworn, was examined DJ-Mr. BUTLER, as follows:^ Q. Were yoa present at the War Offlce on the morning of the 22d of February, when General Thomas carae there? A. I was. Q. At the tirae when sorae demaud was made. A.Tes. ^' State whether yoa paid attention to what was going on there, and whether you made any raerao randura of it? A. I did pay attention, and I raade a memorandum of the occurrences so far as I observed them. Q. Have you that memorandum with you? A. I have. Q. Please state, aseistmg your raemory by that me- morandam, what took place, in the order as well as you can, and as distinctly as you can? A. The me morandum covers the occurrence^ as distinctly- aa I can positively state them ; I wrote it immediately after the appearance of General Thomas, and is raore accu- xate and perfect than I can state frora raemory. TJnlcfls ohiftcted to, yoa may read it. ,Kr, STANBERY— We shall make no objection. The witness then read the memorandum, as fol lows :— ^ Wak Department, Wabhingtpn Cttt, February 22. 1868.— Tn the presence of Secretary Stanton, Jn dge Kelley, Mr. Moorhead, General Dodge, General Van Wyck, Mr. Van Horn, Mr. Delano and Mi^ Freeman Clarke.— At twenty-five minutee to t\^'elve o'clock Adjutant-General Thomaa camo to the office of the Secretary of War, saj^ing ;*^ood morning."' The SeCretarj' replied, ''Good morning, sir." Then looking aroimd, General Thomas said, "1 do not wiah to disturb these gentlemen, and 1 will wait." The Se cretarv replied, "Nothing private here, sir. What do you want?" General Thoraaa demanded of Secretary Stan ton to surrender the Secretary of War's oflice. Mr. Stanton denied it to him, and ordered him back to hia own office as Adintant-General. General Thomas refused to go, and said;—''! claim the oflice of Secretary of War-, and demand it, by order of the President." Mr. Stanton— "I deny vour authority to act on that order, and "lorderyou back to yuur own office." General Thrmas 'Biaid :— "I will atand lierc, I want no unpleas.iutneaa in the presence of these gentlemen.'" Mr. Stanton— "You can stann there if you pleaae, but yon cannot act aa Secretary of War. ' " • - -. , ^ , •jt&a to of War, I am Secretary of War, and I order •"ma to go out of this office to ybur own." Gleneral Thomas—'"! refuse to go, and I will stand "here." Mr. Stantop--"How are you to get posBseeaiou? Do you mean to use force? General Thomaa, "I do not care to nae force, but my mind is made up aa to wbat I ahi to do. I want no unpleasantness. I shall stay here and act aa Secretary of War." Mr. Stanton— "Yoa shall hot, I order yon, as your superior, back to your own otfice,." General Thomaa— "I will not obey yon, but will stand here." Mr. Stanton— "You can stand here or not, as you pleaae; but I "order you out of this oflfice to your own ofHce; I ara Secretary of War." Gene ral Thomaa. then went into an opposite room, croesed the hall to General Schriver's office, and commenced or dering General Schriver and General E. D. Townsendl Mr, StaUtonentored, followed by Mr. Moorhead and Mr, Ferry, and ordered these oracera not to obey or pay any attention to General Thomas. He said, "I deny hia au thority as Secretary of War ctd vnterim,, and forbid obedi ence to his directions ; I am Secretary . of War, and I now order you ont of thia office to vour own office." General rThomas- "Ii'shaU notgo; I shall, discharge the f uHctionfl of Secretar.v ofWar." Mr, Stan t6n—' Yon will'not." Geue ral Thomaa— "I shall require the employees of the Wftr Departmeut'to deliver to me the mails, and shall transact thehusincaa of the oflfice." Mr. Stanton— "You shall not have them, and I order you to your own effice." CrdSB-examination by Mr. STANBERY:— .Q. Did the conversation stop there? A. So far as I heard it did. Q. Youthen leftthe office? A. I did; I left Gene ral Thomas in General 8chriver*s mora, and returned to the Secretary of War's roora ; the Secretary of War reraained for a few moments ih General Schriver's room and then returned to his own room. Q. How curly on the Morning of the22d of February aid you go to the office of tbe Secretary^of War ? A. ^y impression is it was about a qnarter past eleven. o'clock in the morning. ' : i .j < Q. Had yoa beea there at all the night before ? A. I Iwd not been. The storm which nassed ov^r Wie city made the Hall so.d^rk that the gas had to be-J!ghted at thispoifit. The testlmcny was then resumed, Q. l)id yon hear the order given by General Thomas in General Schriver's room? A. Yes, sir. ¦ ' j , Q. Were you in General Schriver's room at the time? A. I believe I wSs'the flrst Who followed Mr. St^o ton into Gen. Scfitriver's room, and Mr. Moorhead Came Second. Qeneral Emory on the Stand. General Williara H. Eraory sworn, and exarained by Mr, Butler, - - Q. What Is vour rank and yonr coramand in the army? A. I am Colonel of the Fifth Cavalry, and brevet major-general in the army ; my coraraand is the Department of Washington. * Q. How long have you been in coramand of that 'department? A. Since the 1st of Septemher, 186T. ' Qi Soon after you went into command of the de partment did yon have any conversntions with the President of the United States as to the troops In the 'department, or their stations? A. Yes. Q. Before 'proceeding to give that conversation state to the Ssh ate the extent of the Departraent of Washington, ita territorial liraits. A. The Deuart- ment of Washington consists of the District of Co lurabia, Maryland and Delaware, excluding Fort Delaware. Q. State, as well as yon can, and if you cannot give it all, the snbfitance of the conversations which yoa had with the President when you first -entered on the command? A.. It is impossible f'tr me to give any thing like the conversation; I can only give the sub stance ofit, it occurred so long ago ; he asked me about the location of the troops, and I told him the strength of each pest, and, as nearly as I could recol lect, the commanding officer of each post.' ¦ ,Q. Goon. A. Thatwas the snbstance and import- ¦* antpart of the conversation ; there was some conver sation as to whether more troops shonld be seut here or not, 1, recommending that there should be raore troops he^, and referring the President to the report of General Canby, my preclecesBor, recommending that there shonld be al wiys at the seat of government at least a brigade of; infantry, a battery of artillery, nnd a squadron of cavalry; sorae conversation wae had with reference to the formation of a bailitary force in Maryland, which was then going on. Q. What military force? A. The force organized by tbe State of Maryland. Q. Please state, as nearly as yon can, what yon said to the President iu substance relative to the forma tion of tbat military force? A. I merelystated that I could not see the object of it, and that I did not like the organization, and saw no necessity for it, Q, Bid vou state ¦^hat your objections were to the organization? A. I think it likely I did, bnt teannot recollect exactly at this time wbnt they were ; Ii think It likely that I stated that they were clothed in a uni form which was offensive to our people — some por tions of it — and that'they were officered by gentlemen who dad been iu the Southern army. ' Q. By "offensive uniform^" do you me^in gray? A. Yes, Q. Do you recollect anything else at the tinae? A. Noihing else. - ; Q. Did you call at that tirae upontbe President at your own suggeation and of your own mind, or were you pent'for? A. I was sent for. Q, When again did he send for.you for any such purpose? A. I think it was the 22d bf February. Q..Iuwhit manner did you receive the message? Ai I received a note from Colonel Moore, Q. Who la Colonei Moore? A. He is private Secre tary to the PrCbident, and an officer in the urrav. - Q. Hfcvei you that note? A. I have not; it may be ;in my desk at the of&ce, , Q. Did you nrnduee .that note before the committee of the House o"f Eepresentatives? A, I read froca it. . -Q. Have you' since seen that nQve as 6opied in Its proceedings? A, I have. - Q. StatC'Whether this (handing a paper to the wit ness) isa correct copy. A. It is a correct copy. Please read it. ,. . Tbe witness read as follows:— JExEGUTivE Mansiow, Washingtok, D, C,^ Fcb. 22, 1868. -hrGcneral i-T'The Preaident directs me to atate that he will ' be jfleafied to have you call upon him &s eirly aepracticable. ¦ TeryreBpeotMy and truly^"™^_ ^^^^^^ ^ g^ ^ Q. How early did yon call? A. I called Imbediately. Q. Ho*B early in the dayf A. I think it was abont mid-day. Q. Who did yon flnd in the President's room? A, I found the PreBident alone. Q. State as nearly as yon can what tookplape theref A. I will try and , state the substance of il; the words I 'canuot nndertal^e to state exactly; tbe President asked me if I recollepted th» conversation he had with me- when I first toolf command of the department; I told him that I recollected the.&ct of the couyersation distinctljs, aud he then asked me IS IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. what changes had been made; I told htm no mate rial changes, bnt snch , as had been made I conld state at once; I went on to state that in the fall six companies of the Twenty-ninth Infantry had been bronght to this city to winter, but as an offset to them the Twelfljh Infanty had been detached to South Carolina on the requisition of the Commander of that district; two companies of artillery had been detached by my predecessor ; one of them, de- Uched for the purpose of aidin? in putting down the Feman difflculties bad been returned to the com mand, and that, although the number of com panies had been increased, the numerical streneth of the command was very much the same, growing out of the order reducing the artillery and Infantry companies from tbe mAximum of war establishment to the minimum of peace esbblisbraent; the Presi dent said. I do not refer to theee changes; I replied that if te would state to me the changes he referred to, or wbo made a report of the changes, perhaps I might bamore explicit ; he said, I refer to the changes within a day or two, or sometMug to that effect ; I told him tbat no changes haa been made ; tbat under a recent order issued for the govern ment of the army of the United States, founded on the law of Congress, all orders had to be transmitted through General Grant to the army, and, in like man ner, all orders coming from General Grant to any of ?jiis subordinate offlcers must necessarily come, if in ay department, through me ; that if by chance an order had been given to any junior offlcer of mine, it was his dnty at once to report the fact; the President asked rae, "What order do you refer tcS?" I replied, "Order No. 15, in the series of 1867;" h^ stated he would like to see the order, and a messenger was despatched for It ; at that time a gentleman came in who, I supposed, had easiness in no way connected with the business I had -"on hand, and I withdrew to the farther end of the room; while there the messenger came with tbe book nf orders, and handed it tome; as soon as the visitor bad with drawn 1 returned to the President with the book in my hand, and stated tbat I would take it as a favor if he would permit me to call his attention to that or der; that it had been passed in an appropriation bill, and that I thought it not unlikely it has escaped his attention ; he took the order and read it, and ob served;— "Tbis is not in conformity with the Consti tution of the United States, which mnkes me Com mander-in-Chief, or with the terms of your commis sion." Senator HOW ABD called upon the witness to re peat his language. Witness — He said. "This is not in conformity with the Constitution of tbe United 'States, which makes me Commander-in-Chief, or with the terms of your commission." I replied tbat "la tbe order which yon have approved and issued to the army for our government," or something to that effect; I cannot recollect the exact words, nor do I pretend to give the exact words of the President ; he said, "I am to understand tbat the President of the United States cannot give an order except through the General of the Army, or through Oeneral Grant;" I said,-in reply, that was my impression, and that was the opinion which tbe army entertainSd, and that I thought tbe army was, on that subject, a unit; I also said, "I think it only fair, Mr. President, to eay to yon that when this order came out there was considerable discussion qn the subject as to what were the obliga tions of an offli ;r nnder the order, and some emiuent lawyers were consulted; I, myself, consulted one,i and tbe opinion was given me decidedly, not eqnivo- cally, that we were bonnd by the order, constitntional or not constitntional." Q. Did you state to hira who tha lawyers were wbo had been consulted 7 A. Tes. Q. What did yon State on that subject 7 A, Weil, perhaps in reference to that a part of my statement was not aUogether correct; in regard to myself I con sulted Mr. Robert J. Walker. Q. State what ydu taid to the President, whether correct or otherwise ? A. I stated tbat I had censnitsd Hr. Robert J. Walker, in repfy to^ bis question as to who il was that was consulted, and that I nnderstood otber officers takdconsnItadMr. Beverdy- Jonnson. Q. Sid yon say to bim what opinion had been given try those lawyers? A. I atated that the lawyers whom I consulted stated to me tbait we were bound by it nndonbtedly, and that I understood from officers w'hom I snpppsed had consulted Mr. Jounson, tbat he was ot the same opinion. Q. What did the President reply to that? A. The Prsident said the object, of^the law wan evident ; there the conversation ended by my tbinking bim for the courtesy with which he had allowed me to express n^y own opinion., - ; , « v' C. Did yon then withdraw? A. I then withdre jvi Q. Did yon see General Thomas that m,brning? A. I h«,ve no recollection of it. , ,• . ' Q. State whether tbis paper is an official copy'of the order to which you ref^rf A. No, sir ; it is only a part df the order ; the order which I had in my hand nas the appropriation bill jn front of it ; that Is " pe> haps another from tbe Adjntant-Qeneral's, offlce, but it IS the snbstance of the order, or a part of It. Q. Is it, sofara? it concern^ this, master?. A. So far as'it concerns tfiis matter it is the same order, but not the same copy ; or, mpre properly speakin j;, the sarae edition; there are two editions ofthe order; one con taining the whole of the appropriation bill, and this is a section of tlie appropriation bill. Q, Is this (handing the witness another paper) sn offlciilcopy? A. Tes. Q. This, I observe, is beaded Order No. 15, and you said the order was No. IT. Do yon refer to the esmS or a different order? A. I refer to the same order. I think Order . IT is the one containing the Approprfs- tion bill ; I think that is the one on flle in my oifice that made the confusion In the Srst place; I said Order 15 or ITi bnt Order IT, I think, embraces the Appropriation bill. Hr. BUTLEE (handing the order to the President'* counsel) — This is No. 15, and covers the section of th6 Mr. EVARTS said— Tben we will treat tbis aa Ord^r No. 17, unless there should be a difference. Mr. BUTLBK said:— There is no difference; and he read the order as follows :— ' GeNEEAL OnnSBS No. 15.— Wak Department, Ad- jtjtant-Genebai.'8 Ofpioe, Washington. March IS, 1867.— The foUowing extract from an act of Congressis published for the information and government ot all concerned ;— "An act making an appropriation for tlie support of the army, for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes. Section 2. Aim be it yurther . . ...I, That the headquartera of the General of ~ the Army of the United States shall be at tho city of Wash ington, and all orders and instructions relating to^nifi- tary operations issued bythe Preeident or Secretaryof War -shall be issued through the General of the ArmXi and in case of his absence through the next In rank.- The General of the Aimy ehall not be retired, sus pended, or removed- from command, or assigned to duty elsewhere than at headquaTtere, except at his own request, with the previous approval of the Senate, and any ordess or instructions relating to military operations issued coi*. trary to the reqiiirements of this section shall bc null aud void, and any officer issuing orders or instructions contrary to the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in ollice, and any oflicer of the army w1m> shall transmit or obey any order or instruccion so iseue& contrary- to the provisions of this section, knowing that snch orders were ao issued, shall be Uahlc to imprisonment/ for not less than two years and not more than twenM years, on conviction thereof in any court of competent 3»i risdiction. Approved, March 3. 1867." .-f-^'- By order of the Secretary of War. -^;- B. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General. Q. Ton are still in command of this department? A. J. am. Cross-examined by Mr. STANBERT- Q. Tbe paper which you had, and which waa read by the President on that day, was marked Order No. 17—15 or IT. In tbat paper marked 17, was tbe whole appropriuioii acted, printed and set out? A. Tes. Q. In otber respects it waa like this? A. In other respects it was hke that ; the copy on flle at my office contains the Appropriation bill, and I may have con founded them.. Q. Is it your impresBloa that ths paper which yon h*a at the President's, or which was read by yon at the President's, ia tbe same as the one in your office? A. That is my impression. Q. As I understood you,, when this document, or No. IT, was sent to the officera of the army, there was a discussion amons; tbem. A, Tes. Q. I see that this document contains no constmc tion of the act, but simply gives tht act for their ll^ formation? That is so. Q. On reading the) actfdiscnasion arose among ihe officers orthe army? A. Yes. ^ And the gentleman to whom you applied was Mr. Hobert J. Walker? A. Tes. Q. Was it hs wbo advised you that you wese bonnd to obey only orders gi-ven through General Grant, whether it was constitutional or unconstitutional to send orders in thnt way? A. It was only tl^e question whether we were bound- by the order. Q. I understood you to say that the answer was oonetitntional or nnconstitutional-. A. Then I made u mistake. My questiou .was, whether we were bound by ,it. I would lite tp correct that. . Q. Tou s&id in a former answer that tbe advice was that you were bound to obey tbe order whether it was constitutional or not, until it was decided? A. We - had no right to jndge of tbe constitutionality. Q. That was the advice you got? A. Tes. ' .Q. Decided by whom and where? A. By the Su preme Court; and not only that, but a new order wonld have to he promulgated making this null and void and of no effect. , . . -out wbich'he is not willing to introduce that letter? -Not at all. Is it not ' fair to read with it the letters ,that are a part of it ?- It seems to me tbat they must read the whole of what the President said in order to give his viewsT, not merely the letter. Mr. WILSON — The managers do not suppress any thing. We have received from the files-of the proper deparimt^nt a letter complete in itself, a letter written 'bythe President, and signed- by the President, in which, it is trne, he refers to certain statements made -by members of the Cabinet touching a question of veracity pending between the President and General Grant. Now, wa insist that that question has nn-; thing to do with this case— everything Coutaiued ih the letter which can, by any po68ibility,-be considered ias the felemenss of "the easie, is tendered by oftering the letter itself: and tbe statements of- the -President, deferring to the said'toclosures," show that those in- 'closures relate exclukvely to that queation of veracity pending between bimSE^If and General Grant, and are 'in Uo wise conuected with the qnestion -between*the Preeident and the representatives of the people." 'Tbe Chief Justice stated the case, (not so as to be ' ^heard by the reuorter, however): Mr. 'WILSON— We expect to. uae tha letter for any -proper purpose-connected with' the issues of the case. We read tha whole of it. The Chief Justice— The Chair will put the qnestion to the consider^tion of the Senate. Senator CONKLING — I offer the following request; —It calls for the reading of the matter referred to by the counsel. The Secretary read the request as follows:— The counsel for the'respondant will please read the words -in tho letter relied -upon touching tbe inclosure. ' Mr. STANBERT read it aa follows :— "General;— The extraordinary character of your letter of the Sd'ihs't would seem to precltiae' any reply on my, part, but the ihanner in which publicity has beengiven to the correspondence of which that letter forma a part, the frave questiona which are involved, induce me ta tarke his modo of giyiug, aa a prpper sequel to the communica- tiohe which have paaaed between ue, the etatementB of five members of the Cabinet, who were present ou the oc casion of our conversation on the 14th ult. Conies of the -letters which thoy have addressed to me upon this subject, are accordingly herewith inoloaefl.'-' , Tha Cbiuf Justice stated tha question. i Kr. PRELINGHUTSEN called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered. , SenatorDRAKK— i desijse to ask whether, if these .objection? are suetained, has it the effeet of ruling out the.lettet altogether J, .... The Chief Justice- No, sir. I In reply to a query from Senator Anthony, the Chief Justice stated that the effect of an affirmat™ vote would ne to sustain the objection of the Prasv- dent's counsel. \ , Senator HENDERSON— I presume tbe Senfitor de sires to know whether the letter can afterwards be read as evidence if tbe objection ebonld be austalaed. The Objection not Sustained. The Chief Ju'stice— It will exclude only the letters. The yeas and nays were called, with the following result ; — YEAS.^Me88rB. Bayard, Conkling, Davi^'^Dixon. Doo little, Fowler, 'Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks,' J6hnBon, McCreery. Morrill (Vt.), Norton, Patterson (Tenn.), Sosst Sprague, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willev-gO. Nats.— Meeere. Anthony, Buckalew, (Jameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conncas, Corbett, Cragin. Drake. Ed munds, Ferry, Fessetldon, Freliughuyaen. Howard, Hpwe, Morgan, MorriU (Me.). Nye, Patteraon (N. H.), Pomeroy, Eamaey, Sherman, Stewart, ¦ Shmncr, Thayer, Tipton, Williama, Wilaon— 29. So the objection was nqt sustained. ^ Thomaa' Appointment. Mr. WILSON— We nowoffer a copy of a letter of ap pointment by the -President, appointing Lorenzo Tho mas Secretaryof War od interim, that is certitied to by Gen. Tho-mas. I submit it to the court for examina tion.- I colli' attention to one thing conuerted with it. We offer.it for thft purpose; of shovring thnt General Tbdifla's "ait'^mpted to act as Secretaryof Wsiradinr. teti-m. Sis signature is attached to that document as such.- If we are not called upou to prove his signa ture, we will not offer any evidence for tbe pnrpose. He read the paper, as wall as the following indorse ment:— Official copy, respectfully furnished toEdvrin M. Stan- ton. L. THOMAs,.,Secr('tary of War ad interi/th'. ¦Keoeived 10 P. H.,'Feb. 21. 18ii8. ¦' " Mr. STANBERT— That is in the handwritinsf of Mr. Stanton? Mr. BUTLER— That is in the handwriting of Mr. Stanton., Mr. "WILSON— 'We next offer copies of the order re moving Mr; Stanton'; tb6 letter of authOKity appbiht- ing GeneraVTbbntas, with cfrtain indorseinents there on, forwarded bjjbo Preeident to tbe Secretary of the Treasury for his information. I submit that. After ineppciion by Messrs. Stanbery and Curtis, Mr. WILSON 'ssked :— "Have ths counsel for the re spondent anv objection totbe introduction read nega tively?" ' ; The papers 'were read. 1 Examination of Colonel Wallace. George tfT. Wallace, sworn and examined by Mr| .Butler., Q. What. is your rank in the army? i A- Lieutenant-Colonel .Twelfth : Infantry, ccnnmandini the garriSiOu of Washington since August last. , Q. 'Whattim^in 4:ugnst7 .A. The-la,tter part of tte; month; theexact 'day I do not recollect. ^.li -.'; Q. State.jf at ai^y time you were sem fnr to gwiton the Executive Maeion about the 23d of^FebruArTf>*MH On tbe 2!Jd of February Ireceived a note from (jiilanejl Moore that he desired to see me tha Q. Does he act as secretaryto the President? ..believe he 4oes. - - , ' Q. About what time of ths night did yon receiwt note? A. About seven o'clock. Q. Was there any time designated when yott, weBil totall? -^A,. Merely in the morning- Sunday moralnul . Q. Did you go? A. I did. , -K ' iS' JS^*"*' time in the morning? A. About tena'clock. ' Q- Did yon meet Colpnel Moore there? A. I did. ¦Ct What; waa .the business? A. He desired to Bee me in reference to a niatter relating to myself person ally. ^ ,, Q- How? A. Sometime in Dewmber my name had been submitted to the Senata for a brevet;, the papers hadibeen returned tp the .Executive Mansion, and on looking over them Colonel Moore was of opinion that my name had been set aside; his object was tO notify me or thA fact, in order thai I might make use of in fluence, aBd have the matter rectified. ^ Q. Aftarthat, did' he say anything' abo,nt 'your ses* ing the President? A. I aiked him hpw the t'-tesident wae ; he replied, ver^ well ; do you desire to see him? to which I replied, certainly, and in the course ofa IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. Hon. BENJAMIN P. WADE. (6) IMPEACHMENT OF. ANDREW JOHNSON. 81 fBw minutes I was admitted to the presence of the Executive. Q. Was a messenffer sent in to know if tbe Presi dent would see yon? A. That I am unable to au swer. Q. Did Colonel Moore leave the room where you ¦were convcsing with him before you went in to see the President. A. He lett tho room to hrin^ out this pucka?« of papers, and for no other object thati am aware of. Q. Bid he ^o into the office where the President Wfis only f(ir that purpose? A. Yes sir. Q. He brun? bt the pai'kase and explained to yon thiit yonr name appeared to have been rejected? A. Ttfl i=ir. Q. And then yon went in to aee thePresident? A. Idid; 1 went In at ray own request. Q. When you had passed the nsnal salntations, what was the flrst thing'he said to you? A. The Pre sident ai*ked me if any chanties had been made in the gariM^on within a short time, in movlilg'tbe troops. . • Q. You mean the garrison of Washington? A. Yee Q. What did yon tell him on that subject? A. I reported that four companies of the Twelfth Infantry h;id heen seut to tbe Fifth Bistidct, and that beyond that no other changes had been < made; I omitted to mention another company which I have since thoug'ht of. i Q. Did hQ ever send for yon on snch an errand ber fore? Mr. EVAKT3 suggested that the President had not eeni for hiitf on this occasion. Mr. BUTLER modified his question. Did heever eet you into his room, directly or indirectly, in order to pnt such a question aa t&at before? Mr. EVART3 objected ta the qnestion, becanse it as sumed that the' witness had stated that on bis inquiry how the President was? the Secretary said: — "Would. you Uke to see him?" and he «aid, '^CeEtainlyf" and went into his room. That was certainly not getting him into the room directly or indirectly. Mr. BUTLER— I avsame one thing, Mr. President, and the connsel assumes another, Mr. EVARTS— I follow iha testimony. I assume nothing/ Mr. BUTLER^I again say that I assume the theory on the testimony, and I think the testimony was that the witness went there by the procurement of the Presideni. I shall so argue when I come to it. But, without parleylugabont thai, I will pat the question In fehis form:— Q. Were yon ever in that like position in reference to the President before? A. Never. Q. Did he say to ypu anything on tMat subject as to his haviner asked the same question from yonr com mander. General Emnry, on the previous day, and of his haviugtold him the same as yon did ? A. No, sir. Q. Did he speak of it as a thing which he did know alreiidy 7 Mr. EVARTS suggested that the witness shonld «tate'what tbe President said. Mr. STANBERY also objected to this mode of ex- ^am'iuation in chief, saying thatit was a mode of ex amining witnesses which was altogether new to counsel. Mr. BUTLER withdrew the qnestion, and asked was there anything more said? A. Nothing more. Q. On your part or on his? A. On neither. ^. Did yon find ont the uext day that you had been rejected by the Senate? A. I need the word "re jected'* In my testimony before the committee, bnt I dou't know tbat that was the right expression-; when I come to reflect npim it the words nsed by Colonel Moore .were, "set aside ;" my o w n view of ine matter was, that I bad been rejected. Q", Wny do yon change, now on the stand, the word '* rejected'? for the words " set aside ?" Mr. EVARTS— He does not change. He said "set , aside" before. It is you that makes the change. Mr. BUTLER^I understand what he said. (To the witneas) -Q. Why do yon now change and say thnt yon do not think Colonel Moore nsed that lausuasd. ' A. I have a perfect right to make use of snch language as I think proner as a witneas. Mr. BUTLER— Entirely so,, sir; bnt I only ask yon why yon use it? A. My eeason is to correct any mis apprehension in regard to the expretsiou of Ouloael Moure; my own view of it was that it >ainanhted.to a rejection ; he said, "set aside ;" h« used .that language I think. Q. Did he make any diff'erence between *^t aside" and "r^'ected^atthattitneJ A. That is a questiun I never thoagbt ot Q. Did he advise von to nss influence with Senators to get yourself confirmed? Mr. STANBERY asked what that had to do with tbo qnestion? Mr. BUTLER said he wantedlto nnderstaud what the witness meant by rejected? The witness was not cross-examined, but the court took a recess for ten miuucgs. Mr, Stevens haa n. Fall. During the recess Mr. Stevens, in attempting to reach a chair, feil on the floor of the Senate Chamber. Several Senators ran to his assistance, raided him and helped him to a chair. He appeared not to be mtt(Ui hnrt. 1 , ,: , After the recess Mr. Butler pnt iu evidence thp order restoring G«jieralThqmas to^he Adjutant-Ge- neraPs office. The ord«r is dated Headquarters of tbfl army, February 1^, 1863, and ia as follows:— General L. Thdmas, Adintant-General, Sir:— Gen. Grant directs me to say tpiit t|\e President ofthe United Stales desires y^n to assume your duties ae Adjutant-G«tieral of the army. Yety respectfully, C, B- Oomstook, Brevet Brigfldier-;Q«aeral. ' ATr. Chandler's Testimony. William E. Chandler was theu sworn and examined by Mr* Bntler. Q. I believe you were once Assistant Secretary of the Treasary? A. I wae. Q. From what time to what time? A. From June, 1865, till November 80, 1867. Q. While in the dii^char^e of the duties ofthe oflice did yon learn the office routine or practice bywhich racd'in the eleVetith'article, , by which the PresideBt^pT^opoSed to get control of the j moneys of the Treasury Departmeij^ and of the War : Department. If the counsel has any other question to ask, I shall be very glad to answefiil? Mr. STANBERY— That is not a sufficient answer to the question. • ... - - n-. * ¦. t . . Mr. BUTLER— It is sufficient for the time. ¦ ¦ Mr. EVAKTS— Whafpart of thedeveuth 'articlfe do you pnipDL-e to connect thie testimony with? Mr. BUTLER— With both the eighth and eleventh! articles. The eighth article says, -that said Andrew Johnson, unmindful of the high duties of hia offlce, and of his oath of office, with intent 'Unlawfully to control' Ihe disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War', -did so and so. Onfe of his- melins for doing it was to place his Private Seci'etary in the affice x>f the Assistant Secretary of the Ti-easnry. The Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, nis I understand it, iS' al lowed hy law to sien warrants.- Mr. EVARTS said the managers propose, to prove that there being na vacancy in the offlce of- Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the President ^proposed to appoint Edmund Cooper Assistant Secretacy, 'That is -the idea, is it ? We objeet;to its relevancy nnder the : eighth articlei As to theelafventh article, the honor able court will remember that in our answer we stated that thei-e was no suseesting of ways and means, or, of attempts of ways and means, wherebywe could an swer it; the only allegations there being that, in pui*-, saauce of a speech which he made on the IStb nf Au- eust, 1S6T, and afterwards, ou the.aist of February, 1868, al the city of Wiiphington, m the District of Co lumbia, unlawfully and- id disregard of the require ments of the Constitutioni prevent the' execution of ¦the Tenure of Officcact.; , ',¦ ' The only aillegationfi Inthat article are, 'that on'the aist of February, 1868, the President did attempt k) , preyent the execution of the Tenure of Office act by unlawfully contriving means to prevent Edwin' M. SDinlon from resuming, hisi place iu the War Depar# ment. and now proof is offeredi here substantively of efforts in November, 1867, to appoint Edm:rad Cooper aB'APBiBtant,Secretary of the Treasury.* We object to such proof, .- . . ^ . Mr. BUTLER— The objection is -two-fold; one ie that the evidence is not competent; the, bther is that' the pleading is hot sufficient. It is said' that' the pleadTnBis;too general. ' ¦ - If we wereto find.an Indiotmentat common lawfor a conspiracy, and were to make 'the allegations too general, the only objection to that wOiild be that it did uot sufficiently inform the defendants what facts should' be given iu evidence; and.the remedy for a- tdefendfltnt iti that oaseis to move for specifications, or abill.nf particularsj therefore, indictments for con spiracy are lienGrally drawuas was the indictment in , the Martha Washington caee, giving one- general' count, and then several speciflc counts, setting out' speciflc acts, iu tbe nature of specificAtiona. so that If the pleader fails in suataindug the'«pecifi:c :acts, the ! piert may hold good unde,f the ijeneral count.'*' ¦ ^ ' We need not, I say, discuss the questioniof plead ings. Tbe only qusstion is, is this i9%\.\vt\owy compe- ,teut. The ditiiculty that restS/th the mind nf my learned friends on the . other side, is that they cltiBter •.everything about the 21st.of February. They seam to ,ifOKget that the 21st of Febrnary was only 'the culmina-, tUoB of s.pdrnoKe fornied.long- befinre, ae^iniXhe Pre sident's answer is set forth, to wit, us early as the 12Lh of August, 1867. He aays that he determined then tp get Mr. Stanton out at any rate. ¦ . , „ , 1 used the words: yeatcvdSJ "at jill haBsards," and, perhaps, thafmay be subject to criticism. , Now, tben, there iire mahy things fivr the^esident todo. He must get. control of the War Office ; but what good wild, tbat do if he conld not get somebody in the Treasury Department who should be his ser vant his slave, dependent upon his breath to answer the. requisitions of .his pseudo-officer whom he might appoint to th& War Departmenti and, therefore, he begins early. The appointraent of Mr. X3oooer as Asliatant Secretary oCtbe Treasury was, ,thcj:efore, » means on the part of the President to get his bands into.the Treasury ofthe United States. „ ^ „ ^ We show the Senate that, although Mr. McChHocIi, the-Seeretary of the- Treasury, mnst have known that Thomae was appointed Secretary of War aa, interm, the Prcfident took pains to serve upon tiim an al^ ¦tested copy of his appointment, in order that he and Mr. UDoper might recognize it. I h*ve yet to Isara that it, was ever objected anywhere that, when Ism tracing a man's motives and when I am tracing his course, 1. have ,not a right to put in any act thathe does, everything that cornea out of his mouth, as part of piy proof. J ; . r . - .r. . r Let ua see if that is not sustained by authority. Ths question arose in'the- trial of James Wattas, for Ijfgh treason, in 1817, before one of the beat Iawyovert act nnder which l?his evid'ence was receivable, itis a universal rule of evl- dencei-that.yyhat a party says may bei given in evi dence agaiust himself to explain any • part of his conduct to which it bears referoace." The counsel for the defense said— "We do not object .thatit is not evidence, but that it is not proof of the ioviertaot,;" {Lord Bllenboron^h aaid there can beno doubtthat-Wi^teverlproceeda from the mouth of a man may be given in evidence against him, to'show the intentioniwith which be kets. a-forHori, wben,it ia under his own hand. If his declarations maybe -given in evidence, why not bia acts. . / I would not trouble the preaiding officer, and^I would not bave troubled tbe Senators noon this mat- -ter, had it not^ been tbat there niay be other acts, all -olusteriti'g arodu^ thiseraud conspiracy, wbicb> wfl propose, if we are permitted, to put in evidence. The question objected to is, who was Edraund Cooper? That was ali the question. I suppose my friends do not mean serionalv to object to that. Mn STANBERY— We asked what yon expected EO prove in Keferen ce -to iC ?. xi . , i , ' Mr. BUTLER— I have replied to that.. I propose to prove that Edmund Cooper took poasession ofths office of Assistant Secretary of the'Treasnry before the SOth of November, showing that the Presideut gave a commission illegally and in violation of, the Tenure of Office act, to which I Wish to call atteu- 'tioui The sixth. section of that act declarea that the ma-k- ing, signing and sealing, countersigniug or i8'*nine any commission or letter of authority in plac?- of an officer whose removal hala not been sent to the SenatB, shall be deemed a hAeh misdemeanor; therefore, the verysienineof thisJletter of authoritv to Mr. Cooper, the signing, if he did not issue it, and the issning, if he did not sign it, there belng.no vacancy in the office, 13 a crime, and- is a part uf tbe greit conspiraGV. Tie qnestion therefore will be, whether we will be allowed to go into that matter? Mr. STANBERY said:— We don not object bo much to the question as to who Edmund' Cooper is, but we want to know what it hAs todo with tbia ca.«e, »nd what even the illegal appointment of Edmund Giwper to the office of Assistant Secretary has to do with this case?-' We want to know what "the appointnwntrtf Bdmun4 Cooper for the pnrpose of icoatrolling ths moneys of the Treasury has todo with the case? I nndorstftttdrthc leairnefl manager to aay that the proof he tuteu(ls!tOimakelu/re^d to Edmund Cooper is^ in the first place, that there was an. i-llegiii appffi»t^ meul of Mr. Coaper, and that the President violated IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 83 the Constitntion' of the Uuited Stales and violated the' Tenure of Offlce act. Have they given ns notice to come here and' defend any subh deUnqdeucy as ttiat? .Has the House of Representatives Impeached: the' President for" hny- thing done in the removal of Mr. Chandler, ifhe wero removed, or in the appointment of Mr. Cooper in His place, if he were appointed- . The managers aolftct one Instance ot what they claim to be a violation of the Constitntion and of the Tepnre of Office act, and in reference to a temporary appolntm'sut of an officer during the recess of the Senate. ThAt was the case of General Thomas, and of General Thomas alone. Aa to that, of cotirae, we have nO objection to Us being given in evidence, because we have noticeof it, and are here ready to meet it; but as to any high crime or misdemeanor in reference to the appointment cf Mr. Cooper, certainly the managers have no au thority to make such a charge, because they come here with a delegated authority; tbey come here only t» make charges that have been found good by the House, and not to make charges which they choose to manufacture here. The managers have nb right to amend these articles,; tbrfymuBtgoto the House for that right. If theychCoae *o go to the Houae to get i *new article founded upon the illegal act of the President ffi appoidting Mr. Ooopfer, let them .do ao, aud let ua have time to answer it and to meet it. So much as to the admissibility of testimony in regard to the illegal appointment of Mr. CoopeiV it is a raatter hot charged ; that is enough.; itis a matteu which the mauagers are not authorized to charge. They have no auch delegated authority here. What ia the ground on which they aeek to prove anything in relation to Mr.. Cooper ? .They eay they expect to prove that Mr. Cooper waa put' iptafthat oflice ot Asaietant. Secretary of thju Treasury by the Presi dent in o'rder to control the disburBementa of moneyinthat departpient. ' Now, if it were necessary to have an article charging the Preaident with the appointment of General Thomas aa a meana need by him, to get control of the Public moneys, of course, it would be qqually necesaary t'oTiave an artirle founded on the same hue of conduct in regard to Mr. Cooper. Mr. BINGHAM paid :~Mr. President,, we conaider the law to be well settled and accepted everywhere in this country and in England, that every independent acton the part of the accuaed, looking to the subject matter of the inquiry, may bo given ih evidence, and we go no fur ther than that we undertake to aay on very.hiih and com manding authority, that it is settled that snch other and Independent acta, showing the purpoaes of the accused to bring about the same general results, although they raay be the subject matter of a separate indictment, piay, nevertheless, be given in evidence. If a person io charged ¦ with having counterfeit notes in hie posBeeaion of a'certain denf'mlnatioh, it ia competent to show that he was in pos- sesaion of other counterfeit notes of a different denoraina tion, and tbe rule of the booka ia, that whatever ia compe tent to prove tjie general charge is corapetent to prove the Intent. What is the allegation in the eleventh article? That the President, tor the purpose of setting aside aud defeating this law- Mr- STANBERY- What law? Mr. BINGHAM^The Tenure of Office act. I undertake to sav that, by the exiating law, the appropriation raade for the snppbrt of the array can only be reached in. the Treasury throngh a requisition drawn by the Secretary of War. Here is an independent act done hy the accused for the purpose of aiding this result. How? By appoint- ¦ ing an Assistant Secretary of the Treaaury, who, under the law and regulatipns, is'authorized to sign warrants that maiy be drawn oh the Treasury; in other words, "by ap- pointing a person to discharge the verjy duty which would MTiblehimtocarry out the design with which we charge him. Jli' the^ppointmentaof such an officer throws no light on that subject, of 'cour|B it haa nothing to do with the mat ter. It. it dbea; of course jt has a great deal tb do with the matter. If the queation atops with tho siraple inquiry^ who Edmund Cooper ia, ot course it throws no light on the subject, hut if the testimony disclosed such relations to the President^ and a,n appomtment under such circnra- stances aa to indicate the intention of Cooper to co-ope rate with the President in this general design, I apprehend It throws a great deal of Ught on the subject. , In case of the removal of the Secretary of the Treasury, then this Assistant Secretary of the Treaaury wonld have control of the whole question. I am free to eay, that it no- thing further be sh&wn than the appointnient of Mr. Cooper, it will not throvp-' any light upon the subject; but I do not so understand the matter. Mr. BUTLER— In order that there may be a distinct proposition before the Sengtoi we offer to prove that there being no vacancy in the office of AH^iistant Secretarv of the Treasury, the President nnlawfidly ap-pointed his friend and his heretofore private secretary. Edmund Cooper, to that position, as one of the -neans hy which bo intended to defeat the Tenure of Office act and other laws of Cou- Mr.EVAUTS suggested that a date ahould be inaei-ted. Mr. BUTLER said he would insert a date aatlafactory to himself. He then modified his proposition bo as* to read, "We oflfer to prove that, after the President detennined on theremoval of Mr. Stanton, Scordtnry of War, in apite of the action of the Senate, thero being no vacancy in the office of Assistant Secretary" ofthe TrcAaury, (fee. Mr. EVARLS suggested thaf that did not indicate the date surncii.'ntly. Mr. BI;TLER-4 think if the learned gentleman will allow uie I will make my oflFer as I like it myself. (Laughter). Mr. EVARTS-Of course; lonly ask you tenamoadate, Mr. BUTLER re'pQated the offer. The Chief J irfltic© astice asked the counsel for the Presi dent if they desired to be heard in support of the ob jection? ' ' Mr. EVARTS repUed-No; we siraply, object to It It oi]ght not to need any areiiinent. The Chief Juatice saidbe woiild submit the question to the Senate whether the teatiraony would be adinitted. .Senator SHERMAS requested the managers to read the particular part of the eighth' and eleventh articles to prove which the testimony is offered. ~ Mr. BUTLER replied by reading that fart of thfe eighth article which charge* the" Preaident' with intending un lawfully to control the diabu raem ents of the moneya ap propriated fofTnilitary service and for tbe Department of War, and aleO by reading that part of the elevontti article which chargea the President with unlawfully devising and contriving, and attemp'ing to doviae and contrive, meaus then and' there to prevent the execution of an. aot entitled' a"n act raaking appropriations for the support'Of the army. He also road that pairt of the eleventh article, which charges the Preaidenj; with unlaw'fiiUy Revising and con- tri^ng, and attempEing to deviae and cnntriVc! moans by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stapton from ibrth'- with resuluingChe functions of the Ofhce of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding tho refuaal df the Senate to concur iq the suspenaion theretofore -made. He said that in that cbbnection the managers claimed that the appointment of Mr. Cooper was part of the map bhinery to carry oiit 'the designs of the Preeident.' The questi.ou was, he said, whether Mr. McCuUoch would an-^ swer to requisitions of General Thoraae, or of any one else whom the President might put in the olHce of Secretary df War, if Mr. Stanton should hold ont. It waa clear that the President knew he would not do eo. and, thei'efore, the President'a.design waa to get aoraebody in the Treaaury Who wotfld sigii warranta onthe requisition, of General Thoraaa. In this way tlie President would havo got the whole army and Treasury ofthe United States in hia con trol, and it was With that intent that he made the appoint- meht of Mr. Coorei*. Senator JOHNSON put the following qnestion to the managers, in writing :— The managers are requested to say whether they propose to show .that Mr. Cooper was ap pointed by the President in November, 1867, as a meane to obtain the unlawful posaeseion of the public money other than by the appointment itaelf: Mr. BUTLER— We' certainly do ; we propoae to show that he appointed him, and that' thereupon Cooper went in to exerciae'tlie dutiea of the office before hia appointment could, by any poeflibility< be legal; and we hope and be lieve that we will show that he has been controlling other public moneya since. Senator HENDERSON requested that the testimony of tbe witneas in reference to tne mode and maimer of ob* taining money ou the requisitions of the Secretary of War Bhould bp read. The chief Justice remarked that the witness might be asked to repeat hia statement. Senator HENDERSON aaid that hie object was, to know whether raoney could be obtained on the signature of an Aaaistant Secretary inatoad ofthe Secretary. Mr. BUTLE R proceeded to exaraine the witneas on- that point,— Q. State whether the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury can sign warrants- for payraent of moneys? Mr. EVARTS-That is ndt the question. Mr. BUTLER— Q. State whether on requisition of, any department of the government the AasiataUt Secretary of ttie Treasury, can sigh warrants oh the Treaaury", fbt the payment of. money? A, Utitil -the passage or tho late statute, whenever ' the S'ecr6tary of tn e Trea sury was preaent and, acting, money could not be drawn' from the Treaaury on the signature of the Ae- sstant Secretary; an act haa been paased within;aycar allowing the Assistant Secretary to sign warrants for the jpayraent of.money into the 'Treasury j covering in war ranta, and warrants for the navment of money on ac counta stated : but the practice still continues of honoring allcnstomarv warrants, by the signature of tho Secretary of the Treasury,' The warrants are prepared andthe initials of the Aaaistant Secretary put on them, and then are signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, when they are presented. j Senator FESSENDEN asked that the law to which wit ness referred might be read. While the mcBsenger Waa gone for the statutes, tho Chief Justice said he would aak the witneas whether, before the passage of the act to which he referred, any warraut could be drawn by the Assistant Secretary unjeaa he wag Acting Secretary in the absence of the Secretat-y r ¦ ^ Witness— There* could not. No money can bo drawn from the Treasury on the signature of the Assiatant Secre tary unlesa wheu he is acting as Secretary. Mr. BUTLER— When tho Aaaistant Secretary acts for the Secretary does be sign all warrants for the pavment of moneys? A. When he ie acting Secretarv of couraeJie signs all warrants for tho payment of moneys. Senator CAMERON said that he deaired to aak the wit ness a question. . 84 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. The Cnief Juptice reminded hnn that the rules required qupptjons by Seuators to be reduced to 'writing. While Senator Cameron wkn writine out his question, Mr.BUrLRRreadthe acti referred to by Mr. Chandler. The act declared that the Secretarv of thp Treasury shall have power by appointment to dele^af^ one Aspistant Secretary to sign in hia stead all warrants for the pay ment of money into the public Treasury, and all war rants for the dicbiu'eement of public moneya certified to be due on accounts duly audited and settled, and all war- ' rants cigjipd are to haye the sarae validity aa if aigned by the SHCretary hiinself. Mr, EVARTS-WhatiBthedatftof thiUaw? Mr, BI^rLKR— March.2. Ig67^ To witneaa— Incase of tbe rcnio\al or absericeof the Secretary of the Treasury , thei As i^tant Seerajtary performs all the acta of the Secretary? A. Thnt ia, rhe law. Mr. BUTLER— t was only asking about the practice. Ib that tbe practice? A. I am not certainthat itis. without sn appointment as Acting Secretary, eigiied b> the Presi dent. St-nator CAMERON sent up his question in writing, as . folio vs:— Q, Can the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, under the law, draw ^va^^an.ts for the payment of rar^ney by the TiToaaurer. without the direction, of the, Secretary ofthe Treasury? A. Since the passage of the act I underatand that the Aasiatant decretarycan sign, warrants for the pay-, ment of money in the cases specified, which is priCPumed, however, to be with the consent and approval of the Secre tary of the Tre-i'iury. ¦ - ' Senator CAMBRON desired to ask the witneas another question, without reduci ig it to writing. The Chief Jusaice said he could, do so if there was no ob- tion. ' _/ w ' Senator WILLIAMS objected. Sen itc CAMERON sain he had merely desired to ask what had been the practice. The Chief Justice said that the. Senator was not in ordpr. Mr. BUTLER asked the questiob suggested, whether it ha.'* bc-cn the practice of the Aaaiatant Secretary to sign warranta. Answer bv witneas— Since the passage of the act in ques tion it has be^n. Senator FESSENDEN submitted the following queation in writing:— Q. Has it heen the practice, since the paaaage ofthe Kw, for the A'^sistant Secrctar,\ ,01 the Trea^urv to sign war rants unless he wa'i specially appointed and authorized by the Secretary of tho Treaaury? Has any Assifrtimt Secre tarv boen anthorized to sign anv wan-auts imlejs such .is are specified in the act? A. It haa not been tbe practice of an Aeaitjtant Secretary since the passage of the act, to sign ivarrants imleaa on atipointmeut by the Secretary for that purpose, in accordance -vvirh the provision of the. act. A. Immediately on the pa^^sage of the act, tbe SccVetavy amtlvii'i^t.'d one of his Aat'iatant Secretaries to sign war rants of the character described in tho act, and they have been customarily signed by that Adsidtaut Secretary in all ca ea. Q. Since tbat tirae haa any Aaaistnnt Secretary been au thorized to sign any warrants except such as are specified in the act? A. Vo Apf^istaut Secretary has b:;en anthorized to sign. warrant.*, except such aa are specitied in that act, nnl '.ss when he ia acting Secretary. ' The Chi'^f duatice put tho; question, whether the proof proiio.jecl by Mr. Butlor should .be adraitted? The vote re"ilted. Yeas, 23; naysi 27,ia8 follows:— Ye.\.8— Met^sra. Anthony, (Jameron, Cattell,, Chandler, Cole. (Jonkling, Corh'^tt. Cra'gin, Drake, Howard, Howe. Morrill (Vt.), Nve, Ramsey, Rosa, Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, Tiptfin. Wilson., ,^ Nays.— Mnasrs, Bayard, Buckalew^ Conness, Davis; Di>:nn, Donlittle, Edmunds, F^rry, Feasenden, Fowler, Fi-elingUnysen, irrinies, Heuduraon* Hendricka, Johnson, McCreerv, M )ri'ill (Me.), Nortim, Patterson (N. H.). Pat terson (Tenn.). Shermin. Stewart, TrubibLilI, Tan Win kle, Vickers, Willey, Williams. So the testimony waa not permitted to be offered. Examination of Charles A. Tinker. Charles A, Tinker, sworn and exarained by Mr. Bout well. Q. What ia^vonr business? A. Telegrapher. Q. Are you m charge of any office? A. I ara iu charge of the Western Union Telegraph ortice, in thia cit^'. Q. Were vou at any tin'<: m charge of the military tele graph Ollice, in th'^ War Dppartuicnt? A. I wa?. Q. Frora what tirae to vf hat time? A. I can hardlyslell from what time I was in charge of it up to August, 1867 ; I think I waa in charge of it something liko a year ; I was connixted ^ith tboolpcef^if something like five yeara. Q. While m charge of thii office, state whether a der Bpatch frora LtJ^viH JS. Parsons, of Montgoraery, carae to Aiwirew Johnson,, President, ajid if so, at, what dat ;? A. Ithink while' I waa in that office I saw a good many such dixipiitf-hes. . -. . , , Q. What paper have you no^inyourhand? A. Ihave what purports to be the copy of a telegrapi from Lewis E. Parsons, of Montgomery-, Ala., addressed to His Excellency Andr.MV Jolmson, President. ^Q. Do you know whether that telegram , canie through the ofhce- A. I recognize this as being the character of a despatch which waa received at the Military Telegraph OfRce. Q, Were duplicates of telegrams received kept at the militalY telegFiiph office? A. What is called a press copy is taken of overy despatch before it is delivered. Q. Is a copy taken of a despatch before it ia sent? A, Not before being sent ; the originals are kept on file ^t the ofhce. Q. State whether, at my requeet, yon examined these preas copies? A. I did, Q. Did you find ?uch a despatch as I have described among these press copies? A. I did, , Q. Did you make a copy of il? A. Xmadeacopy of Iti Q. Have yon got one on bAnd? A, No, I have not;.I made a copy of tne deipatch, and answered the SHmraons of the managera ; I pUced a copy ih yoiir hand^. an'd heard you order your clerk to make a copy ; afterward.-' the clerk' returned with tliis copy, and gave me back the copy I had made ; this ia the copy which the clerk made, ' Q. Have you the original deapiatch? A, IhJ^ve^' , , . Q. Produce the original despatch and the copy of both. Mr. EVARTS— What ia raeant by the original' despatch? Witness —1 mean that I haj-e the press copy. ' Mr, STANBERY (to the witness)— Did yoa make this >py yourself? A, The press copy ia made by a cltjrk. Mr. EVARTS objected to putting in evidence thee from the press book. copy Mr. Btf*rLER said h^ would pass from that for a moji mont, and would aak the witness thi& qiiestion:— Do yot| recollect Whether such a telegram as this pissed throiign theoffice? A. I do, /not remember this despatch haviug pa?Eed through the ofHcc. ,. Q. State whether on the aame d^y, vou bave an originid despatch signed "Audrew Johnson?" A. I have the de apatch in full. . ^. Q, Are you farailiar enough with the signature of An drew Johnaon. to tell whether that is his signa^tpre or not? A. I belifeve it to be his signature; I'ahi familiar witbhis handwriting. - * - Q. Have you any doubt of this,, in your ovra mind? At None whatever. ., . • ,. ^ ': / Q. Is that book whieb yon hold in vcrir band the record book of the United , ^tktea Military Telegraph, in the exe^ cutive office, where the original idespatches are put on recoi'd? A. It iathebbok in which original despatches are filed. Q. Do youknow whetber.the despatch to Lewis C. Par sons passed throngh the ofifice? I do ^npw it from the marks it bears. It ia marked aa ha\'iug been sent. Mr. SrA.VRl'^RY-^Let us aee the despatch. Mr. BUTLER was handing the book to Mr. Stanbery, wheu he suddenly remarked, "I will give you a copy of ii," (Langhter.) He aubaequently, however, banded the book to Mr. Stanberry, who inquired what was the object of the Pfor-f, , , , ' Mr. BUTLER— Do you iobject to the document,, what ever is the object of the proof? Mr. STAN i-tERY-We want to know what it is. Mr. BUTLER— The queation which I ask is, whether yon, object to the vehicle of proof. Mr. S rANBKRY-Oh, no. Mr. BUTLER to, witneas -What is the date of that de- Bpa'tch? A. Jannary 17, 1867. Mr. STANBERY^ to Mr. BUTLER— Now what ia the object of n. Mr. BUTLER— Nof vet eir. To the witness— On the aaraS day that thid is dated, do you find in the records of the department a preas copy of a despatch from Lewis C. Par sons of which thii ia an answer? A. I find the press copy of a despatcn tg which that waa an answer. 0. Was this telegraifh oifice undactho control of the War Department. A. It waa. -. Q. And the officCrb were feraployees of the WarDeparih ment? A. They were. Q. Were ;the records kept at that time in the War De partment? A; They were, Q. And are those books and papers produced fromthe War Department? A. No. air, they are not. Q. Where do they corae frora now? A.. They come from the War Depa-tment to the telegraph office. Mr. BUTLER aaid he now proposed to give in evidence tbe deapatch of Lewis C. Paraons, to which Andrew John son made answer, aud asked was there any objection as to the vehicle. - , - ---„, --.,-- — - .£md, and the .question We, now stand Uponia, as to ,the coiflbetency of the .proof. We hate had no notice to produce the original, despatch of Mr. Parsons, but we care nothing about that. We waive that, and now we inquire in what views and under what article, these despatchea, dated prior to the Tenure of Office act, are introduced. , , ,' Mr. BUTLER— In order that wo may nnderstam wliether those papera are adraia.sible in evidence, it bSr. C'oraes necerfaary. with perniission of the President and bf the Senate J;o read tbem deb^ite'e^se. ¦ Mr. CURTIS-We do not object to your reading thera 'd« bene esse. , - ¦ Mr. BUTLER thereupon read the despatch, aB follows :- MoNTGOMBBY, Ala.. Jan, 17, 1867,-Hie Excellency, An drew Johnson, President:— Legislature in session; -effoBts made to consider vote on Constitutional Amendment; re^ port from Washington says it is probable an enabling act will pass ; we do not know what to beUeve. LEWIS O. PAJEiSONS, Exchange Hotel. United States Military Telbqbaph, BXbootivb Offtoe, Washinoton, D, C, Jan. 17, 18t>7.-Hon. Lewis C, Parsons, Montgomerv, Ala::-JWhat possible good can he obtained by reconsidering tho Constitutional Amend ment? I know of none. In th« "poedent posture of atfairs. I do not believe the people of the whole country will sus tain any set of individuals in the atterapt to change the whole character of our •government by enabling acts. IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 85 In this way I believe; on the contrary, tbat they will atually uphold all wbo bave the patriotiara and cour to stand by theConfititution^ and who place their con- eventually uphold all wbo bave the patriotiara and cour- Age to stand by theConi»titutioni and who place their con fidence iu the people. There should he no faltering on tne Tiart of those who are earnest m determination to austain ho eeveral co-ordinate departments ofthe government in aoeordaneo with ita orisiual dedgnj^^^^^^ joHNSON. Mr. BUTLER said be did not dei^ire to argue tho ques tion as to the admiasibility of tho evidence. He claimed that it was competent, either under the tenth or eleveuth articles. .... Mr. CURTJS— The tenth article seta out speechea aipd libt telegrams. . , , i. i. , ., , Mr. BUTLER— I am reminded by the learned counsel that these are Epeeches, pot telegrams, that the tenth ar ticle referato; lliriow they are, but with what intent were these speeches made; for what purpose were they made? They were made for the purpose of carrying out the con- I poinf wliere an attomk- - -;¦,,.-- • . against the lawful a^a of Congress; to destroy the regard and reapect of all good people for Congresa, and to excite the odium and rcsenthient of all.the good people of the United-States against Congresa and a law which it had ' enactpd. 'fhe Preaident went through the country in Sep- t€*nl?er, 1866, declaring that Cougreaa had no pow^r to do tyhftt it waa proposing to do. Oongreaehad prot)oaBdthe Con ati tution rtl Amendment to the people of the States, and for the pnrpose of prevent ing that Constitutional Amendment bbing accepted every poasible contumely waa thrown at Congress and every pos sible step taken to prevent the adoption ofthe araendment. This telcgt-am from the President is one of those ateps. He lound that while that amendment was beine couPidered in the Sonthem States the President of tbe United Statea, stepped down from his high position and telegraphing to tbe Legislature of Alabama not to accept the proposed amendment. I do not care to argue the question further, Mr. EVARTS— If the honorable managers are right, .this evidence ia proposed tn be relevant and competent only in referfece to the criraes chained in tbe tenth and eleventh wrticles. Is that your propoaition? The propoaition is that it ia relevant to thera. I made no probosition as to the reat. Mr. EVARTS— Voti did not name any of tbe othera. Mr. BUTLKK— I did not think ft necessary. . Mr. EVARTS— Then I shall not think ft necessary to consider the others. The article bere chargea that the Pre- ddent ofthe United States devised and intended to retard the rightfbl authority and power of the Congreas of the United States, and devipcd and intended and atterapted to bring into disgrace, ridicule, and contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, or to destroy the re spect and regard of aU good people of tho United States for the legialative power of Congreas, and to excite the odiura andreaentment of all good people ag.iinatCongress and the laws constitutionally enacted by thera. Now the acts charged to be done by the President with this intent are, first, a apeech delivered by hira in the Exe cutive mansion, in Augnat, 1866 ; second, a speech delivered by him at St. Louis, and in a speech delivered in Cleve land in September, 1866; and the article concludes that by means of, these utterances Andrew Johnson brought tbe higb'office of Preaideut of th^ United States into ridicule, contempt and disgrace, and thereby committed high crimes and misdemeanors^ Now, Senators wol judges from the reading of the tele gram dated Julv, 1867, whether it in any way sup- fiorts the principal charge of intent. Article 11 sets forth hat, in those speeches, he aflirmed in substance that the Thirty-ninth Congress was not .the Congress of tbe United States, authorized by the Constitution to exercise legisla tive authority; but, on tho contrary, fhat it was a Con gress only of a portion of the United States, and thereby de nying that the legislation of that Congress was valid or ob ligatory nn him, except ao far as he thought proper to admit or recognize the Bame» thereby intending to deny the au thority of Congresa to pass amendments to the Constitution ofthe United States; and in further pursuance of that intent he, in disregard of the requirements of tbo Consti tution of the United States, did, on the 23d day of Febru ary, 1868, attempt to prevent the ex4scution of an act en titled "An act to regulate tbe Tenure of Office," passed Harcb, 186?! after the date of this despatch, bj' attempt- ing to contrive means to prevent Edwin M.Stanton from executing the office of Secretary of War, and by further contriving to prevent the execution of an act making ap propriations for the aupport of the army for the fiwal year £fi68, passed Marcha, 1867; and also for contriving to pre vent the execution of an act for the more efficient govern ment of the United States, also referred to in this de- Bpatch. Mr. Evarts then read the despatch to Lewis E. Paraona. and continned :~Thero ia nothing in this despatch perti nent to the chanee; nothing that tends to raise a scandal on the Presidential office; nothing that has the ali^hteat relation to defeat the law ; nothing that can be claimed to be a /proper eubjoot of au allegation ef high crimes and misderaeanore on tho part of the Prerddenf, and Ave aav that the testimony, spread over the widest field of inquiry, fails to support any, (jbarfts of crime, or any .intent, or any purpo!^e mentioned in the article. Mr. BOUTWELL, for tbe managers, contended that the evidence of the telegraphic despatches was admissible in slit>port of the charges contained In tho eleventh article. If attrition bef-given to the eleventh article, it w ill be eeen that if charges that on August 18. 1866, tho Prerident, Iq tho citv of Wftsbingfon, in a pnblic. ^eech, delivered by hira, affirmed in aubftance that the Thirty-ninth Congregg was not a Congreaa authorized by, the Constitution, to exe cute legiriative power; that itwas not a Congresa pf the X nited States, but a Congreaa of only a portion of the Statea, thereby denying that the legislationof said Con grees waa valid or obligatory on hira, except in so far aa he thonght fit to recognize or admit it. thereby denying the right of said CongrcBB to paas articlea of araendraent to the (Constitution ofthe United States. This ia the very snbstance cf this telegraphic despatch, and in purauance of it, aaid declaration, the Preaident af terwards to wit, on Februarv 21.1868.vi'hich we understand to include all theae dates; besides, the declaration, which is tho ba&ia of the article, ia open to us for the introduction of testiraony tending to ahow tho actsoi the President on this point; that atthe city of WashinRton, he, in dis regard oJ the requirements of the ConBtitution, at tempted to prevent the execution of an act en titled an act t^ regulate the tenure of office, and by devising and contriving, and attempting to deviae and contrive means then and there, to iprovent the execution of an act providing for tho support of the armv; and also, toprevent the execution of an act to provide for the more efiicient governraefit of the Southern States, and thereby to properly see and understand the naturo and extent of the influence of the President in sending tbiM telegram. Here is Mr. Parsons, known to be Pro'risional Governor of Alabama in 1865 and 1866, and possessing immenae in fluence in that part of the countrv, and who aske the President's 'Opinion onthe subject of the reconatruction of the Rebel States. , He, Governor Pardons says that tbe Legislature is in session atod about to take up the question of the Constitu tional Araendment. The reports from Washington say that probably nn enabling act would be past^ed, relating totbe act knnwn as an act for the more efficient govern ment of the Rebel States, through which these Statea were to be restored to the Union, and he (Parsons) aaka the opinion of the President as to what he^hall do. ¦V\1\at does the President reply to this? "What good can be obtained by recohe'idering the Constitutional Amend ment? I do not believe the people will support any eet of ¦ individuals." Here is the whole giat of the telegraphic de spatch aa it appliea to the charge m the eleventh article. There we aet forth that, in September, 1866, the Preaident declared that the Thirty-ninth Congreas was not a con stitutional body, repreaenting the whole Union, and in this despatch he apeaks of Congress in the same way. He aays :— "I do not believe tbat the -people of the country will guetain any" set of individuala," thus describ ing and characterizing the Thirty-ninth Congress aaasetof individuals, eager in an attempi: to change the whole character of our government by passing enabling acts, or otherwiae. We aay he is, we have evidence of the intent of the- Preaident to defeat tbe will of Con gress, in regard to the enforcement of an act, and that proves the offenae charged against bim in the eleventh article. I am reminded that tbe Reconstruction act pro vided for the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, under the Conatitution and coincident as to the right of a State under an enabling act, to be restored to the Union. The despatches were again read, and cries of "Question^ qnestion." Mr. BUTLEE— Let me first call attention to the fifth section of the act of March 2. 1867, known a? the Recon struction act:— "And when eaid- State, by a vote of its Le gialature, elected under said Constitntion, shall have 'adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United i^tatef, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Conaress, aud knowit as article fourteen, and when said artide shall hecome part of the Constitution of the United Statea, tbe said State shall bo entitled to representation in Congress, and Sena tors and Rcprcaentatives shall be adraitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law :" ao that the adop tion of the araendment is a part ot the Reconstruction act.. CriOB of question. Mr, HOWARD— Mr. President, I offer a queation._ It was read ae follows ;— What amendment to the Constitu tion is referred to in Mr. Parson'a despatch? Mr. BUTLER-There was but one at that time before the country, and that was known as the fourteenth .arti cle, and ia the one 1 have just read, and which is required' to be adopted by every State Legislative before the State can be admitted to representation in Congress, The Chief Justice again stated the question tobe. wh&. ther the evidence offered by the managers la admiPsible. Senator DRAKE called for the yeas and nays on pecond- ing the call. Several Senators held ug their hands, but the Chief Justice said the Senators 'nill rise. The call was ordered and resulted as folipwa ; - Yeas,— Messrs. Anthony, Caraeron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole. ConkliuK, Conneaa, Corbett, Cragin. Drake, Hender son, Howard. Morgan. Morrill (Vt.), Nye, Patterson (N.H.), \Poraeroy, Ramsey. Ross, Sherman. Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Willey and Wilson--r27, -;¦ NAYS-Meaara. Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Ed- rannds, Ferrv. Feaaenden, Fowler, Frehnghuysen. Mc- Oeery, Morrill (Me.), Norton, Patteraon (Tenn.)i Trum bull, Van Winkle, Vickera, Wilhams- 17. So the evidence waa admitted. Mr. DOOLITTLE moved that tbe court now adjourn until to-morrow at noon. , Mr. StTMN ER-I hope not. The Chief Justice put the queation. and declared it lost Several Senatorw called for a diriaion. •Senator RAMSEY— The qnestion was not understood, The Chief Justice put the queation again, and said tbe yeas seemed to haveit. The qnestion was agreed to, and the Chief Justice va cated the Chair, and the Senate adjourned. 86 IMPEACHMENT, OF ANDREW JOHNSON. PROtEEDINGS OF FRIDAY, APRIL 3. Preliminaries. The Chaplain prayed that the issue of this tr4al would reslor^ peace to the country and establish our government on its only true basis— liberty aud equality. Ab usual, qo leeial&tlve bu^ness was transuded, bat tbe. chair wa^, immediately after tbe opening, assumed by the Chief Juatice, aud proclamation made in due form. The managers were announced and took their seats, aud directly thereafter the House of Bepresentatives, in Coramittee of the Whole, ap peared, in nuraber abont equal to tbe managers. The journal was tben read. In the meantime tbe galleries had become tolerably fflled. To-day, for tbe first time, a fair sprinkling of sable faces appeared among tbe spectatoi:s. The Seventh Rule. "When the reading of the journal was conciaded Senator BRAKE rose and said:— Mr. President, I move that the Seuate take n-p the proposition which I offered yesterdiiy to. amend the aeventh rule. The Chief Justice— It will be considered before the Senate, if not objected to. It was read, as follows:— Amend mle 7 by adding the following:— tJpon all such queftions the vote shall be without a di-vision, unless the yeas and nays be de manded by one-fifth of the members preaent, or re- <;nflsted by the presiding officer, when the same shall Senator EDMUNDS— Mr. President, I move to strike out tbat part of it relatiner to tbe yeas and nays beiug taken bv the request of this presiding offlcer. Senator CONKLING— Mr. President, not having besrd the motion of the Senator (Edmnnds), I ask for tbe reading of the seventh rule. It was read as proposed to be amended. Senator DRAKE— I have no objection to the amend- meut of tbe Senator from Verrnont. The rnle, as amended, was ad<;iipted. On motion of Senator DRAKE, the rales wero or dered to be printed atf amended. Air. Tinl£er'a TeHtimony. Charles A. Tinker recalled:— Mr. BUTLER— Before interrogating Mr. Tinker, I wiirread a sing;le paper. The paper is the message of the President of the United States, cortim uni eating to the ^eu ate the report of the Secretaryof State, showiue the proceedings under the concnrrent reso lution of the iwo Houses of Congress of tbe 18th of June, in submittiuff to the Lee:i»latnres of the several States an additional article to the Constitntion of the United States. Senator THAYER— What article? Mr. BUTLER— The fourteenth article. Itis dated June 22^ 1866. , Itjietb^ same one to which tbe de spatch related. An executive document of the first BCflsion ofthe Thirty-ninth Con cress. , In order to show to what despatch he referred, the message was handed to the President's counsel for inspection, after Tjriiich it was read by the Secretary. The examination of the witness was then proceeded -with. Q, Yon said you were manager of the Western Union Telegraph Office in this city? A. Yes. sir. Q. Have you taken from the records of that office what purports to be a copy of a speech which was telegraphed through by the- company, or any portion ofit, as made by Andrew Johnson on the ISth day of August, 1866. If so, produce it? A. I have, sir; I htive taken from tbe files what purports to be a copy of the speech in question. (Producing the doca ment.^ Q, From, the coarse ofthe bnsiness of the ofBJse are yon enabled to say whether this wssssut'^ A. It has The "sent" marks pat on all the despatches seut from tiie offlce. Q. And this Is the original manvscfipt? A. This is tbe orisiual manuscript. Q, When was this paper sent, to wbat parts of the country, and, first place, hy what association was this epeech telegraphed? A. By tho Asaociated Press ; by their agents ia the city of Washington. Mr. CURTIS, of counsel, was understood to object to the paper. ^ ' Q; By Mr. BUTLER— Can yoti tell me, sir, to what extent through the country the telegraph messaees, sent to the Associated. Press go? A. I suppose they go to all parts of tbe country ; I state positively tit New York, Philadelphia aud BaUimore; tbey are ad dressed totbe agents of the Associated Press; froh) New York tbey are distributed through the country Cross-examination waived. Mr. BUTLER-iYou may step down for the preset Bxaminatlpn of J. B. Sheridan. James B. Sheridan, sworn and Axamined by Mr.' BUTLER— Q. What is your business? A. I am a stenographer; employed at present in New X^t^ city: on the ISth of AugustpiSCG, Iwas a stenograpber,;,Ireporteda spepch of the President madeon the ISth of August, 1866, in , the east room of the Presidential Mansiou ; I have the notes taken at the time of that speech ; took the speecto drtwnCorrectlT as it was giveu ; I did it to the best ^t my ability.; I have been a reporter some fourteeH years ; I wrote out that speech at the time ; I wrote 'OUt apart of it at the President's mansion'; there weed several reporters present; there was Mr.* James G(i Clephaue and Mr. Francis H. Sraith, reporters. Q. i>Q you mean Mr. Smith, the offlcial reporter to the House? A. I, belieye he was at that time coi> nected with tbe House. Q. Who else were theref . A- I think Colonel Moore was in the room part of the time. ' "Q. What Colonel Moore? A, The President's favorite Secretarv, William G. Moore. ' Q, Af terit waswritten, what, if anything, was done with it? A. Idonotknow; I think Mr. Moore took it oat; Iwas very sick at the time,- and ! did not pay ranch attention;; either be or Mr. Smith took it out; I did my share ofit; wa divided 'among Us, -Clephane, Smith andH. - Q. Look at , this file of manuscript ^placing before tbe Witness manuaeriptfuTnifhed from the telegraph office ag. sent to the Associated PresB),.and see whether you find any of your handwriting? A. Irecogmze some of the writti^ as mine. . ¦ . Q. Have you since written out any portion of the speech as you, reported it? A. I wrote out a couple of extracM from'it. ' -'•¦!¦' Q, Is'thisyour handwritinfc? (Hasndmga paper to wi** ness.) A. It ie ; what I hold in my hand is a corredl transcript: of that speech, made frora my notes. Itwas written when I appeared before the board of managers. (Witneas, by direction of Mr. Butler, placed his initials on the paper.) ' Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS— Q, You have pro duced a note-book' of a lengthy stenoCTaphic report of '» speech of the Presidout. Is it of the whole speech? A. It is'of the whole speech; tbe report wad wholly made by mc ; the speech occupied in the delivery, I uuppose, soms twenty or twenty-five minutes,- ; . ¦ - Q. Bv what method of stenographic reporting did yon: proceed on that oceaaion? A.' By 'Pitman's system of pho nography, . ' ¦ 1 Q. Which is, I understand, reporting hy sound, and not by aense? A. We report the sense by the sound. Q. I understand you ; you report by sound only? A. Ye^ Q. And not by meraory or of attention to sense? A. Ko good reporter can report unless he paya attention to tha sense and understands what he is reporting. > Q. State whether you were attending to sound, and seth ting downfn your notation, or attending to sense, aM setting it down from your meraory and from your atteo- tion to aense? A Both. 0- Your characters are arbifraiw, are tbey not? That is, they are peculiar to 3'our art? A. Yes, air. Q. They we not letters? Ai No, air; nor words; we have some word signs; this tranacript, which I made of a portion of the report for the use of the committee,' was' made recently, a fow weeks ago. Q. What, m the practice of your art, is the experience as to the accuracy of transcribing by stenographic notes after the lapse of a considerable period of time? A. Iwill' •give yoa an Illustration ; when J was called before the managers I did not know wbat was wanted With me, and when they told me to tum to my report of the President's speech, I found it in my book, and read out, at their re quest, tho extract which they desired me to cony. Q. You read from your stenographic notes? 'A, Yea; the reporter for the managers took it down, and I Kfterwardi wrote it out. Q, Do you make a sign for every- word? A. Almost every word, except fhat we Bometimes drop particles. , Q. .You have signa which belong to every word, except ing when you drop tbe particles? A. Yes air; but.not, oa a raatter of course, a sign which is the repreaenta tive of a' whole 'word; we have some signs representing whola^ words. Q. For tbe word "jurisprudence'* ^on have no one sign that represents it? A. No sir;! shonld write J R S P, iand that is an illustration of the proceeding. Counsel examined attentively tho notes of the witness, and seemed te Im apparently ssitiBfied. IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON; 8r Mr. Olepliane's Testimoar. James 0. Clephane, avyoru' and examined by Mjr. BUT LER— Q. What is yonr buaiftaas? , A. I ara.at jiresenta deputy clerk of the Supreme Conrt of tfa^ Diatnct of Co lumbia. . t Q. What was yonr eraployraent on the IBth of August, 1866? A. I was then secretary to Mr. Reward, Secretai-y «State. , Q. Aro you a phonoCTspbic reporter? A. I am. . 43. How consideraWe nas been your experience? A. lUEht or nine years, . , j , . Q. Were you employed on the 18th of August,,^- . make a report of the President's speech in reply to . Keverdy Johnson? A. I was : I was engaged, in connection with Mr. Smith, for.the Associated Press, and alao for ths j3aftwOAroniei(?,. of Washington. , ^ ^ , Q. Did you make that report? A. Idid. , Q. Where was the speech raadef A, In tb^ east room of the White Houae.. „ . , ,; , , ¦ Q. Who were present? A., I noticed a good many per- BDUB present; I noticed General Grant and several other diatingiiiahed gentlemen. j. . „ > ,„ . -, Q. Were ^^- other 'of the Cabinet offi^ffl'S present? A. I Ao uot recoUect, ¦ ir ! > < _ 'T report that speech? A. Idid. .1 Did yis .- What wasi done with that report? A. Colonel Moore, ' Prepfdent's private eecretary, dcRired the Privilege of iain^ it before publication, and, in order to exjjedite revising it before publication, and, in order fo exjjedite gattei's. Mt. Smith, Mr. 3herid»u and myeelf united in .e-febornf .transcribing it : Mr. Sheridan transcribed one portion, Mr. Smith one, and I, a third; after it wae revised By Colonel Moore it was then taken and handed to the Agent of the Associated Press, who, took it and telegraphed tt over the eonntry. . . , - .¦ , Q. Look at that roll Of raanuscript before you, and aw" if ¦ itwaapeechof which you tranacribed ajjortion.^ A.Ido not recoguiKe,any of my handwriting ; it is poaaible that I njsy have dictated ray portion to a loughamd writer. ¦ Q. Who was present at the time writing? A. Mr, Smith, Mr. Sheridan and Colonel Moore, as I recollect. Q. Do yon Jmow Colonel Moore's handwriting? A. I dp Mot. . ' , . Q,. Did you send yonr report , to the ChronicleT, AjMt:. Wacfarlan-, who bad engaged me to report for the Ghro~ vdele, was unwilling to take tbe revised speech, and de cided to have the speech ae delivered, as he stated, with all the imperfections, and, as he in?isted on ray re-writing tbe apeech, I did so; it was published in- the»9Mndai/-^orn- vm Chronicle of the 9th. ¦ > Q. 'Have you a copy of that paper? A. I have not, Q. After that report waa published in the Chronicle oh Sunday morning did yon see it? A. Idid, *nd examined. It very carefully; I had a cnrioeity to know how it would reacl under the circumstances, being a literal report, ex cept of a word changed here and there. Q. How do you , mean? A. Where the word used would evidently obscure the raeanina I made the change; al-, though, perhaps, I wonld not be ablu to point it out just now. ¦ .,;,,¦ Q. With what certainty caniyou apeak with reference to the Chroniclers report being accuratio? A. I thmk I cpuld speak with ceutainty as to its being -an accurate, literal report, with the exception I have named ; perhaps there is a word or two changed here and there. Q. Give UR an illustration of this change. A. My atten tion was called to the matter by some correa.pondent, who, leaming that tho C'/iron^We had publiBhed a -ucr&atim re port, had carefujly scrutinized it, and he wrote totbe Trhro7iiole to eay that in one instance there was no expres- flOE usedby the Preaident of "Yon and I have sought," or, soraething of that kind; that expression was corrected in, ¦the report I wrote out. Mr. BUTLER here stated that he was informed that. there are two manuscript copiesvin the telegraph office, and that Mr. Tinker had given the one, that which wns written out at length as a duplicate, and'tiiot the original manuscript as he had supposed. He would, therefore, have to bring him again, and hewouln send for him. Crosa-exam in ation by Mr. EVARTS.--Q. You were act ing in the eniijloyment of the AsaOdiatedPreaS? A. Yea, air. in connection with Mi^"- S'l^i'^h. ' Q. You Were jointly to raake a report? No ; we were to report the entire speechT-each of us— and we then divided to save labor' of tranacribiug ' Q. Did you take phonographic notes of the whole apeech? A- I did. Q. Where are your phonographic notes? A. I have Eearcbed for tbera and cannot find them. Q. At auy tirae after you had ciomplotea, the phbno- praphic notes, did you translate or write them out? A. I 'Q'. i'he whole? A. Yoa; the'Wbole speech. Q. Where is that translation or written tranacript? A. I do not know. The manuscript, ef .course, was left at tho Chronicle office ; I wrote it for the Chronicle in full. Q. You have never seen it since ? A. I have not. Q, Have you made i"earch fbr it? A. I have not. Q. And thjESQ two acts of yours, the phonographic report and the ti-antilation or writing oitt, ia all that you had to, do with the apeech ? A. That ia nli. Q. You say that snbsoquontly you read a nowapaper copy of tho speech in the Washington Chromclef A. I qL When wasittba^you road that newspaper copy? A. The morning of the tmblicatioA-Sundav mernmg, Au- Q. Where were you when you read it ? A. I read it at my room. ¦Q. It was ifr-oni-that curiosity that you read it? A. 1 read it raore carefully because of that. Q. Had. you before vpu yom" phonographic notes, or your writing transcribed from tbf.m? "A. I had not. ^Q. And have yOu never seen thera in comparison with thfr newspaper co^y of tho report? A. No, air. . He-direct examination by Mr, BUTLER— Q. Have you before you a copy of the Swnda/y Moming Chronicle at the 19th of August? A. I have. Q. Look on the page before you, and aee if you can find the speech as you reported it? A. I tind It hore. Q. Looking ftt that speech, tell rae whether you have any doubt that that ia an accurate verbatim report of tlie speech of Andrew JohUaon on that oceaaion, and if so, what ground have you for the doubt. Objections. ¦Mr. EVARTS.— We object to that. It ia appai-ent that the witness took notes of this speech, and that tho notes have been written out. They ai'e the best, and rapst trustworthy evidence of the actual speech raade. In all public proceedings we are entitled to that degree of accuracy arid tWiatworthinees' which tho naturo ofthe fca^e denianda,. and whenever Fapers of that degree of authenticity are presented, then, or the firs't tirae. the queation will *ripe wh'^ther the evi dence is competent. It is imposrible to contend, on the' evidence of this witness as it now standa, that he remem bers the speech of the President so that he can produce it by recital, or 80 that he can say from raemory that this is the spefech. What is offered bere? ¦ ' The aarae kind of evidence, and that alone which wOuld grow oCit of some person who heard the Preeident dt-liver, the speech, and when he aubaequently read in the Chroni cle a report of it. He would aay that ho thinks the report was a true statement ofthe speech. Tbis witnesfl his told ua distinctly, that in reading this speech from curiosity, to- see how it would appear, when reproduced without, tbe or dinary, guarantees of aecrnracv, he bad neither his original notes nor his written , tranacript, and that he, read the news5)aper as otb.ers would read it, but with more care from that decree of curiosity that he had. Now, if this matter ia to he regarded aa important, we inniet that that kind Of evidence,gi'ying a newspaper ireport 6f it is not adr misrable. Stenography. Mr. BUTLER-There ia no qirestion of degrees of e'vi- denbe. We must take the buBineas of the world as we find it, and must not busy ouraelvea and insist that we have wakened up a hnndred years ago. The art of Bteno^. graphic writing has progressed to a point where men must rely upon it in all the buainess of life. Tiiere Ib not a gen- ; tleman in this Senate who does not rely upon it every day. ' There ia notmore than one raembef of tbe Senate who, in' thin trial, ietaking anynot'esof it. Why? Because Sena.' tors rely on. the fingera of the reporter who sits by my' aide,' togiveyou a-trinacrint of it, on which you murt judge. Therefore, in every buainess of tbis court we relyonthS stenographer. This gentleraan says that he haa made a, stenographic report of that aneech; that itwas jointly made by himself, Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Sraith; that hia employer not being satiafied with that joint report, which was tbe President's utterances distilled throngh the ttlerabic. of Colouel Moore's critical discrimination, he wrote out with care an exact literal transcript under the guiding of hia employer, and for a given purpose, and that the next day, having the curiosity to see how the Presi dent of the United States would appear if put to paper, literallyi he examined that speech m the Cftromcfe, and that then, with the matter fresh ih bis mind, and only a few hours intervening, and with hia attention freshly called to it, recognized it as a correct copy. Nowthe learned counael says that tbe msinuacrlpt is the beat evidence. If there were any evidence that the inanuacript had been preserved, perhapa we inight be called lipoh to produce it, in some technicality of law as administered in a very technical mamier; but who does not know that in the ordinary couTSe of businepa in news*' paper offices, that after sucb raanuscript haa been got through with it is thrown into tho newspaper basket'; therefore;! add, upon that usual and cbnimon incident of the businesa of life, thia ia a. question fOr the witness. The question we, are diacuaaing i^ tliiS. Looking at that re port, frOra your knowltdge of the reporter having twice 'written it out, and having seen it the next morning with your curiosity awakened, cau you tell the Senate \vhether that is a correct copy? Thereupon the counegl for the President excepts, and saya he cannoti ' How does the learned counael for the President (know tliat? How does he know that Mr. Clephane is not one of -vtbose gentlemen who having once read liis apoech can re peat it next day? 'J'he qnestion is aniain one. I say, sir. there ia a tranacript of that apeech^ From your knowlrdgt^ of it, having heard 1% having written it down m short- hand, having re-wriftcn it once for cotTection by the Prenv dent's Private Secrotarv, and having again re-writtefl it from your notes for publication, then having examiiied it immediately after it wa* published, from all these sources oif knowledge, can vou say that this is a correct copy? Thereupon, the counsel for the President aays be cknnot How does he know that? How doen he know that he can not repeat every word of it? The dilficulty is that' the ob jection doea lint apply, and I would content rayself, with that statement of it, except that, once for all, I propose to put be*nre the Senate au argument aa to the e'ridence of Btenographic reporting. Allow rae to state, once for all- two authorities on this p Ked to;? {Docuraent" prbdiiced). Ia this the aoorirnent that you but** posed you were teatif \ ing about, theh? A. Yph, air., 0 Do vou give Uie saihe teatimony about that? M'r.STANBERY-Thatwon'tdo. , . ' Mr, BUlTiER— We will givOyou all tbe delay pOBsTble. (Lanfebter.r'To the witness-Now, rir, i^ill v?" tdl UJ whether this was sent through tho Associated Presst' It beare the markfe of having beeh abnt It te taken fron*! the files of that day.' Prom the coitrae of busineisd m yoiu: office bave you-dny doubt of its having been sent? A. None whatever, , '' . . , ^ x,. Mr. CARTER, Of the counsel, objected to the witness' opiniona. .' ,.- ' .a. ^ Q. After %at speech was sent out, did you aeo it pul^ lished by the papers as tl^c Associated press reppj't? A. I > can't pay positively ; I think I did. „ ' ^. ' ¦ , Q. Was that brought to yoUr office forthe pnrpoao of being tranemitted, Whether it waa or not? A. Idid not personally receive it, bnt it is atiaong the Associated Press despatches sent- on that day. ' James B. Sheridan recalled. . ^, Mr; BUTLE'R— Will yOu ' examine that manuscnpt and say if you aee any of your handwriting in it? A. I see my' wfitinghere. . , . ^ „ 'Q^ "What ia tbat you have got there? A. It is a report of the speech made by the President on the 18th of August. 6, \Vhat yeai^ A. 1868. » . , Q. Have you ever seen Mr. Moore 'write? A. A good' many years ago when he used to report for tho ivarM7ia(^ IhteUigencer, and I was a reporter for the Washingtoit^ Unwn. ' - o: He w«S a reporter also? A. Yea; sir. Q. Are there auy corrections made in that report? A, Yes, sir. ¦ , < , Q. Did you see any of them made? A. No, sir. ' Q. Ia that the manuscript that Was prepared in the Pre- pident'e office? A. I think it Is ; I ara' pretty certain th4t' it is . ¦ . o No doubt in your raind? A. Not the least. Wa^ tbe Preeident there to correct it? A. No. pir. ngl . Then be did not exercise that great constitutional __„_it of reviaion to yonr knowledge? A. Didn't aee the President after he'lef t the east roora. Q. Do pou know' whether CulOnel Moore took any me- moranda'of'tbat'speech? A. I'donot; there was quite a crtfwd there. < You pick out and lay aside, sir, the portions that ,are in your haiidwriting. [WjtiieEB aelects a poHion of the manriBcript.] Q. Doyou think you have aH that is in your handwrit- ing? ' A. No, sir. ' i , Cross-exaralnedbv Mr, EVARTS.-Q. You bave pelected^ the pages thatt are m your handwriting? you have them' hefore you? A. Yes, fir. ' Q. HoW'iai'gea prOjiortioiii do they make of the whole raanuscript? A. Icould bardb* tell. Q. Now was thia whole manuscript made as a transcript from your notes? A. Thia part that I wrote out. Q. The whole was not? A. No, sir. Q. Then it ia only the part that you now hold in your' handa thatwas produced from the stenographic original ' notea which you have brought in evidence here? A. rea, ^ sir. Q.' Did you write it in yourself, from vour stenograpic notes, following the latter with your ears, or were your notes read to you bv any other peraon? A. I wrote it irom my own notea, reading my notes while I wrote. Q. Havc'tyou made any subsequent compariaon of tha miinuscript now in your hands with youi stenographic notes? A. I have not. Q. When was this completed on your part' A. Avery few^minutesafitw-the speech was delivered. Q. What did you do T^rith the raanuscript after you went from the Executive Manaion? A. I hardly Kuow; it went frora tho taiblo juat us Iwrote it. I ara not certain about it. Q. And that ended your connection with it? A. Yes, air. .Mr. EVARTS— It is desired that you should bave your origlnarstent^raphic notes here. Mr. BUTLER— Put your initiuls on tbem. One of ray associates ^caires mo to p.ut this question which I suppose you'Ahywerfcd before :— Whether that raanuscript, which ypu have produced in your handvrriting. wae a true tran-' sCHiit ofyonr notes of that speech? A. It was sir; I won't sajY it w.aB^written on^t exactly as it waB^delivered. ¦ there we: „ ^ . ^.-le,;judg: speech just ae it'is deliver6d. : Q. Is that a substantially true vereioaof wbat thePresi dent said? A. Itis. Examination of Francis H. Smith. Francis H. Smith, sworn and examined by Mr. BUT LER— Q. Mr. Sraith, are you the official reporter of; tbe House? A. I am, sir, , Q. How long have you been so engaged? A. In the posi tion I now hold, since the fif;tb of January, 1865. Q. How long havo you bee-u in the businesB of reporting? ,A. Soraething over eighteen years. Q. Were you employed, and if eo. bjr whora', to make a report of the Precidcnt'fl&peech,,inAuKuaL 1868? A. Iwas ojnployed at the instance of the^ilgent ofthe Ajjsociated Press— one of the a>?ent.-t. ' Q. Who aided in that rgBort? A., Mr. James 0. Cle phane and Mr. Jariies'B.'Slierhlan. ' ' _ What "was the change, air, if any? A,. I don't know that there '^ere any phangea, but fi'equently in writing ws' exerctsealittle^ijudgment; we don!t, always write out a IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 89 Q. Did you make puch a report. A. I did. Q. Hive VOU got your notes?! A. Ihave. Q. Ht'ie? A. Yes, sir. Q. Produce thera? nVituess produces notes.] ^ ;,,^ Q. After you had madi- your shorthand report, what did vou do then? A. Iu companv with .Mr, Clephane and .Mr, Shoridan, I retired to oue of the otfices in the Executive M^iucl'ui, and «*r6{e out a portion of my notes. Q. What did the others do? A. The otherri wrote out ofher poi'tiouB of the s^me speech. 'Q. Wh:it wa.'* done with the purtion that you wrote? A. It waft delivered to Colonel Moore, Private Secretary of the Pree d -nt, fheet by sheet, as \triiten by me, for revision, S, lio V cani'e you to deliver it to Colonel Moore? A. I it at hia refl.uedfe, -••, ,- Q. What did he eft) with it? A. Read it over and made oertain alterutionsv ¦ „ Q, Was tbe Prerid^ht present while this was being done? , A. He waa noC **,, , Q. Had Colortel MoOre taken any raeraoranda of the spf^eph to your knowledge? A. I am not aware whether he had or not. Q. Did Colonel Moore show you any signs by which he knew what the President, meant to say, BO that he could correct hitf specbhf ' A. He did not ; he stated to rae. prior to the delivery of the sp^ech^^thatbe deaired perraisaion to revise the manuscrit>t. siiriply'to correct the phraaeology, not to raake any change In any Bubhtatial matter, 6. Will you look, and see it yon can find any. portion of your mantiBcript as you wrote' it there? A. After exa mining it I recognize sorae ofit, sir, , Q. Separare it a^ well you can?, Witneiis diaengagea a por4.i}n of the manuscript. Q. Have yon now got the portjona occurringin two dif ferent portions of the speech wl^eh you wrote out? A, Yes, sir. Q. Are there any corrections in tbat raanuacript? A. There, are, sir, quite a number. Q, In vvhose h;ind\vriting, if you know? A. In .the handwriting of Colonel Moore, ao far'as I see. Q. Have you writteu but from your nutes since the speech? A, I have. ¦ Q. Is that it as it ia wntten out? [Showing raanuacript to witness.] A. It is. Q. Ia that a correct transcript of your notes? A. It ia, ¦ vrith two itniiupartant corrections. Q. DO vou reraember what they, were? A. In the sen tence. "I could 'embrace more by raeans of filence by let- tfng silence speak, what I should and vrhat louphtto eav," should. have been "letting silence speak and you infer." The words "and you infer" had, been omitted, aud there .was the word "overruling" oraitted between the woi'ds "uhdor Providence.-" Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS.— Q, Thia laat papor which has been ehown you is a traaecript of the whole speech— of the entire speech? A. Y&<, sir, Q. From your notea excluaively? A. From my notea ex clusively. Q. Have you anv doubt that .the, transcript, which you made at the Executive Mansion frora your notes waa cor rectly raade? A. I have no doubt the transcript made frora my notea at the Exeutive MaTision was substan tially and correctly made; I remember that, having learned that the raannecript waa, tobe reviaed. I took the liberty ot raaking certain revisions rayself in the language, correcting ungvarainatical expresaiona (laughter), chang ing the order of words in sentences, iu certain cases, and corrections of that aort. Q. Thoae are liberties thon you took iu writing out your own notes? Yea, sir. Q. Have you ever made any exaraination to aee what cbangCa you have made? A. I have not and cannot now point thera out. 'Q. Weil, vou have raade a raore recent tranacript from your notea, did you allow yourself the sarae liberty now? A. I did not. Q. Thati then, you consider a tme transcript of your notes? A. It ia, sir. , QL Do you report bvthe aarae ayatera of sound phono graphy, as it is called? A. I hardly know, sir, what sys tem 1 do report with; I. studied shorthand when I was a ''^^r.^l^"? *° ^'^^'^*^^' the system of phonography aa then puDlishtd by Andrews &, Boyle: I have inchided some olianges pf ray Own eince Uien, g-ndra ade varioua changes, Q. Can you phonographic reportei-s write out frora ono another's report 7 A. I don't think aay fine could write ont my notes, sir, except "InyBelf. Q. Coidd you write oiif anybody, elae'a? A. Probably not. unless written with a very great degree of accuracy and care. Mr. Clephane Recalled. James O. Clephane recalled, and examined by Mr. BUT LER, [Manuscript shown.] . . a, You have already told us that you took the speech wrote it out, whether that is tbe manuscript of your writing out? A. It is. sir. Q. Has it any corrections? Yes, in tbe first line. Q, Who raade those? A. I preaume they were made by Colonel Moore. He took the manuscript as I wrote it. ,Q, WaathatmanuBcript, aayou wroteit, a correct copy 01 tbe apeech aa made, sir? A. I can't aay thnt ^adhered as»perfectl.7 to the notes in the report aa I did in that of tiMChrnnicle. Q. Was it substantially accurate? A. It was, air. Q, Did you, in any caae, change the sense? A. Not at all, sir, only the form of expression. Q... The form of expression, why, sir? A. Off:entiracs when it oDBcured the meaning, to make it more readable. Croaa-examinefl by Mr. EVARTS— What .rulea of change did yOu prescribe to youraelfiu the deviations you made frora your stenographic notea? A. As I eaid, air, I raade chnnges in the fotm of exprewaion. Q. When tbe meaning did not preeebt itaelf to you, aa it enoum;'you mude it Clear. A. twill say, sir. that Mi'. Johnson U in fhu habit of speaking — ' Mr. EVARTS, interrupting- WelL sir. was that it, thai when the rai^a,ning did not preeeut itself to you aB if should, you made it clear? A. Yes, rir. Q. What other rule Of change did you allow yourself? A, No other, sir.. Q. No grabiniatical iraprovement? A. Yea. sir; I maj) h,a,ve— very often tho singular verb wa« used where, per. hfftiB, thb plural onghtto'be, Q. Yon correctL'd, then, the grararaar? A. Yes, pir. Q. Cau you suggest any otber rule that you followed? A. 1 cannot, eir, . Mr. WIIIisLm G. MoOre examined. William G. Moore, sworn.— Exarained by Mr. BUTLER, Q. What ia your rank, rir? A, I ara a paymaster in the army, .Fir, v, ith the rank of Colonel. Q. When were you appointed, air? On the 14th day of November. l86e. Q. Did vou ever pay anybody ? (Langhter.) A. No, sir, not with governraent fundti, air. (Laughter.) , Q. What haa beon your duty ? A, I have been on dnty atthe Executive Mansion. O. What kind nf duty? A. I have beefa in tbe capacity of Secretary fbr the President. ¦ Q. Were you BO acting before you were appointed? A. I wasv^r.. . . , ,. J. . '-¦' Q. How long bad you acted as Secretary before you wore appointed? A. I was directed to attend the PrCaiddnt in the month of Novemher, 1863. . Q. HHdyou'been in the. army priorto that'tiine, Aj I had beeu a iviajoriand asaiBtant adjutant-general.' Q; In the War Deartment? A. Ye8,.8ir. Q. Did yon hear the President'a speech of the 18th ot Anguat, 1866? A. I did. sir. Q. Did you take any notes of it? A. I did not, sir. Q. Look at theraa-nuaeript which lies there befureyou, ana see uhetbor you corrected it? I don't care whether you examined it at all. Did you correct any portion of it? A. Yes. fiir. M.- Where were the corrections raade? A. In an apart ment ofthe Executive Mansion. Q. Who were in the .anpar tra ent^ when you raade the > correctiims? A. Francis H. Smith, Jaraes B. Sheridan, and James 0. Clephane, and, 1 think, Mr. Hatland, of the As- Bociated Press. Q. Had you any raemorandura from the President by which to CQiTCCt it ? A. None, sir. Q. Do yo« claim to have tho power of remembering, after hearing a Bpcech, ivhat a raaneays ? A. I do not, air. Q. -Didn't you know tbat tho Preeidont, on that occa sion, had been exercising hia greater constitutional right of "freedora of apeech.'? • i Mr. CURTIS— That puts a question of law to the wit ness. (Laughter.) Q. Didn't you so understand it, sir? A. I so understood it, rir. . . Mr. STANBERY— We. are to understand, theu, tbat it is constitutional to exercise freedora of speech. T^v. BUTLl^R- That it is conptitntioualto exercise it in this way, it may be conatitutional, I think, not decent. Q. How dare you correct the Prepident's great constitu tional right of freedom of speech, without any memoranda to do it?' (Laughter.) A. The authcfi-ity I aasuracd, Q. How carae you to aeaume the authority Ho correct this gi-eat conatitutional right? A.. It is a difficurfc-'question to anawer. Q. Why shonld you assume the authority fo coirect his speech? A. My object was as the speech waa extempora- neo'us, simply to correct the language and not to change the substance. Q. Did you change the substance in anyway? A. Not that I'm aware of Q. Are there not pages there where your corrections coraprisa the raost of it? A, I ara not a\^¦aro, sir, that there is, frora a hasty examination I have made any one change, perhaps there may be a single exception where ray writing predominates, there are pisea where there are era- Burca, but whether or not I erased thom I d^n't know. Q. Do you knpw whether anybody elae .did ao? A" No, sir.. Q. Did you do that revision by direction of the Presi dent? A. I did not, sir, so far ae I recollect. Q. Hi?, did not direct von?' No, air? Q. Did you say to Mr, Smith, the.n an^ there, that you did it by the direction of the Preaident? A. Not that Ire- member, sir. Q. You mean to say that you raade these alterations and corrections upon the very soleran occasion of tbia apeech, wifthflut any authority whatever? A. That is Ay imprea- aion. , , . Q. After yon made the revision, did you show it to the President?^ A. No, rir. Q. Did you ever tell him tbat you had taken that liberty with his , constitutional ' rights? (Laughter.) A. I can^^t recollect that I did. Q. As you correctdd the paper what did yon dot with tho manupcript? A. The manuscript as it was revised was handed to the agent of the Associated Press, who seut it to the office that it might be publiahed in the afternoon na- , pers. ¦ .' ^ '. Q. Was it publiBhed in the afternoon papers? A. I have no doubt of it. 90 IMPEACHMBJSTT OF /ANDREW JOHNSON. Q. Waa that iB»eeh purporting to come from the Presi dent published from Ibe Aaaociated Press despatchea? A. I don't know, bm- ; it reached the Associated Press. 'Q. Was the parae speech publiahed in the Intelligencert A. Tbe speech waa publiahed in the Intelligencer. Q.Ib that the paper taken iu the Executive Mansion? A. Yes, sir. Q. Waa it at that time? A. It was at that tirae. Q. And Been by thePreaident? A. I preaume it was, sir. Q. Did he ctw chide you or say you had done wrong, or misrepresented him in thia speech at all? A. He did not, sir. .Q. Never down to this day? A, He has never done BO, air. ' ' Q. Has be ever Bftfd there was anything wrong about it? A. I have never beard him say so. .CroBB-exanii nation waved. •Mr; BUTLER— fnow propose, with your Honor's, leave- and that of the Senate, to read the speech as cOtrected by Colonel Moore, unless that is objected,ta: I propose to put in evidence the report of Mr. Smith,' the Associated Pre^s report, and the report of the Chronicle. You are aware, sir, that the President complains in his answer that we do not give the w!|iole speech. We havo now all the versions that we can conveniently give of the whole speech . If not objected to, we will put them all in, otherwise I will only put in the extracts. Mr. EVARTS— Which do you now offer? Mr. BUTLEIU-All{ 1 guess we will get through with tbe whole nf it. Mr. EVARTS- You have proved by a number ofwit- neases the version which passed under Colonel Moore's eye. Mr. BUTLER, interrupting— I think I must ask that the objection raust be made in writing, Mr. EVARTS— Before it is made? Mr. BUTLER— No, sir; as it ia raade. (Mr. EVAlilTS,. continuing— And- the Bpeech* as it is proved in .Mr; .Smith's copy and Mr. aheridau'e copy, we regard, as in the shape of evidence— the accuracy of the report to be judged of as being competent evi dence on tho subject. The speech in tbe Chronicle we do not understand to be supported by any auch evi dence. We shall object to that as not being authenti cally proved. .The speech in the Jntetligentier seeras to have i been overlooked . by the bonoralilo manager, as it is not produced. The Chroniclers speech we consider ' aa not being proved-^by authentic evidence aubmitted to the court, i Tbe Btenographic re ports of the former, with proper proof to support them, and which is competent, raay be coneidered accurate, their accuracy tobe subject of remark, of course, and with out desiring here to anticipate the discussion as to whether any ofthe evidence that is offered here with reference to the eleventh article is admissible, and saying that for t]ie purpose of diicuBsion in the body of the case, ¦w'^e will make no other objection to the reading of the apeecbea. Mr. BUTLER— Do you want the whole of thera read? ¦Mr. EVARTS— Whichever veraion you wish. Mr. BUTLER- -Wb will put thera all in evidence— we will read one. . ' > Mr. TIPTON moved to take a recess of fifteen rainutes. iMr. Trumbull saggested the raotion beraoditied to an adjournraent until three o'clock, so aa to take up the order in regard to the ticket systera. He made a motion accordingly, which was lost. The question was put on taking the recoBS, which waa agreed to. Adjournment. After tbe recess, Senator, GRIMES raoved tbat when the Senate, sitting as a court, adjora-n to-day, it adjourn to meet on Monday next. Senator DRAKE called for the yeas and nays. The vote was taken, aud resulted yeas, 19 ; naya, 28, as follows :— Yeas.— Mcfflire. Buckalew, , Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Fe ssenden, Fowler, Griraee, Henderson, Hendricks, John son, MeCreery, Norton, Patterson (Tenn.), Rarasey, Batila- bury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickersa and Wilson- 19. Natb.— MesNtfs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conneaa, Cragin, Drake, Edmunda. Ferry, Frelingbuyaen, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), MorriU (Vt.). Nye, Pattersou (N. HT). Pomerov, Ross, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer*' Tipton, Willey and Williams —28. The Ang-UBt Speech. Mr. BUTLER proceeded to read the raanuscript bf the ' President's speech of 17th Ahgust speech, 1866, aa rpported by Mr. Sraith, and without the correctiona made, in the re port by Colonel Moore. Senator ANTHONY proposed to»call up the order which he bad previously offered in legislative seasion in reference to the admission of a reporter for the Aaaociated PresB p.n the floor ofthe Senate. . ¦ The Chief Justice ruled tbat It was not in order. . Senator Conkling offered it originally. Mr. ANTHONY— Then I move that the proaiding officer be authorliccd to asrign a place oh the fioor of the Senate ' to t\io reporter of the Aaaociated, PreBS, Mr. CONKLINGf— One single reportor. The Chief t^tice rul6d that the proposition was not in order. Mr. EVARTS asked Mr. Butler what copies or versions of the President's speech he considered in evidence. Mr. BUTLER Bald hb donsidcrcd two copies in cidence ; the oho raade by Mr. Sniith and tbo one which had beeu corrected by Uie Preaident'a private secretary. Mr; BVAK'rS-And'bb other? Mr. BUTLERtt-I do not offer the Chronicle, not becatfife it ia not cvidence,< but I have the same tbings iu Mr. Smith's report. Mr. E.VARTS— Then it ie those two reporta you offer? Mr. BUTLER-Yes; and they will be both printed as part of the evideno&. The Cleveland Oration. William N.' Hudson, awom Mid examined by Mr, BUT- LER.— Q. What is your bUBinees? A. lamm jonmalisthy occupation. ' Q; Where is your home? J^. In Cleveland, Ohio. Q. What paper are you in charge of, or do you edit? A. The Cleveland Leader': Q. Where were you about the 3d or 4th of Septemlwn ' 1866? A. In Cleveland. Q. ,What wae your buainesB then? A. I was then one df the'editors of the header'. S'. Did vou hear a speech by President Johnson from thf cony of the hotel tlibre? A. I did, Q. Did you 'report it? A, I did, with the assistance ot another reporter. ^. WhOisbe? 'A. Hia name is Johnson. Was your report published in the paper the next dayf A. It w ati. §Q. Have you a copy ofit? A. I have. iVitnesB produced it,] . Hav^ you your Original notes? A. I haye not. . Where are tbey? A. I caimot tell ; tbey are probably deatroyed. ^ ''^ - , ' Q. What can you show as to tbe , accuracy pf your ra- port? A. It was a verbatim report, except ih portions ; a part was verbatim tend a part substantifiU ,, Q.'DoeB the report distinguish the parts which are not verbatim from the parta* which are? A. It does. , Q, State whether anything that Mr. Johnson baid la len out? ' ' ¦ Mr. EVARTS— Which JobnBon— tbe President or the reporter Jtfhnaon? Mr. BUTLER— I raean Andrew laat aforeaaid. (Laugh- ter.l ¦¦ ' ¦ . '• , „ Witness- The report leaves out some portions of Sui, Johnson's speech, and 'atates thera in a synoptical forra. , Q WaB anytliing of it there which is not said? A. TherO .are Woi-ds used WhicH be did not use. In statiug, the substance of. what was said there ifi nothing substai*- tially stated which waS not aaid. Q. When waa that report prepared ? A.Tt was prepared on tbe evening of the delivery of tho speech. Q. Did you i-ee it after it was printed? .4- I did, O. Did you ever examine it? A. I did. Q. What can you- Bay as to the accuracy of the report whenever the wprds are purported to b^ given? A. To tm best of ray recollection it wae accurate. Q.' How far is it accurate when the substance purports ^ to be given? A. It^ives substance— the sense without the , words. Q. Taking the avnoptical part andthe verbatim part of the report, does the wbole together give tbe ^ubetance. of what he said on that occasion? ¦ By way of illuwtratien takeitbis part;— '"Haven't you aot the conrt? Havent you got the Attorney-General? Who is your Chief Jus tice? ' Ib that the synoptical part, or ia that verbatira re- port? A. It is part of the verbatira report. Cross-examined, by Mr. EVARTS— This newspaner which you edit, and for which ydu report; waa it of the politics of the Pi'erident, or of opposite opinion in poUtice?. A. It wae Republican in politica. ¦Q. Oppoaite to the viewa of theProsdent as yoii under stand tbem? A. Yea. Q. At what time wafl this speech made? A. On tbe 3d of September, 'about nine o'clock in the evening. Q. When did it conclude? A. I think about a quarter before len o'clock. a. Was there a large crowd- there? A. There veas. , ConsirtLing of the people of Cleveland? A, Of the peoole of Cleveland and of the surrounding towns. Q. Thia balcony from which the Preid'dent spoke, waa tbat also crowded? It was. Q. Where were you? I was on thcbalcony. , y. Were you in aight of tho President? A. Yes. Q. And what conveniences or arrangomenta had you for taking notes? A. I took notes on niy knees. Q. Where did you get the light irora? A. From tbe gas above. -Q, At, what time that evening did you begin to write out your notes? A. About eleven o'clock, O.-Wbxjn did you finish? A, Between twelve and eme o'clock. Q. When did the paper go to preas? A. Between three andfour o'clock in the raorning. . Q. , I?id you write .the synoptical parts fi-ora your noten, or frora-your recbllection of the drift of the speech? A. From mv notes. ft.^ Ypu added nothing, you think, to your notetf A, Nothing. Q. But you did not produce all tbat was in the notes? A.,1 didjQot; I endeavored to copy the eubstance of wb^ the President said. ^^ . Q. You raean the meaning, do you uot; that is the drift of It? A. Yes. , Q. What vou mean exactly is that, that you raeant to give the drift of the whole when you did not report ver batim, f A. Yes. Q. jDid you not leave out any otber drift? A, Not to my recollection. Q. Jla\e yon ever looked to see? A. I bave not oom- parad tbe speech with any full report of it. IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 91 Q. Or with your own notes? A. I did subsequently com pare the speech With notes. Q. This drift part? A. I mean to aay that I compared this report with ray notes. ¦ Q. The part that la aynoptleal, did you compare that with your notes? A, Yes. Q. When? A. The next day. Q. When did your notes disappear? In the course of two weekB? A. They were not preserved at all. Q. Are you sure that you corapared the report of your nJtes the following dayf A. I am. ¦ Q. Did you destroy your notea intentionally? A. I did not. Q. Then where are they? A. I cannot tell. Q. Now, in reference to the part of the speechwhlch yon "say you reported verbatim, did you at any time, after writing them out that night, corapare tbe transcript with the notes? A. Idid. . ^,. ^ .. .' « * , Q,. For the purpose of seeing that it was accurate ? A. .'when waa that? A. Next day. i. With what assistance ? A.- Without any asBiatance, tolhe beat of my raemory. „ . „,_ Q. Did you find any change? A. There were aorae ty pographical errors in the reading of the proof; there were no material errors. Q. Were there no errors m tbe tranacript from your notes? A. I did ndt compare the transcript with my notea: I eo^uparpd it as printed. ' O. With what ? With my notea. '¦' Q, That was not my question ; but you did compare the 'speech as printed with your notes, and not with the franscript? A,. 'VeB, with my ncftefi; not with the tran- " icript. . Q. Did you find that there were any errors m the minted report as compared with the original notes? A. ¦There were Bomb typographical errors. Q. And no others? A. Not that I remember. Q. Are you prepared to say that you compared the printed paper next morning with your phonographic notes, and tbe report inthe printed paper was absolutely correct? A.' They were not phonographic notes. Q. What were they? Common writing, written out in 'longhand? A. Yes. sir. Q. Now, do you raean to aay that you can ¦write out in long hand, word for word, a apeejsh as it coraes from tho mouth of a speaker? A. In thi» instance I did write out ' portions of the'Speech. ' Q. Then you did not even havo notea that were worth, making except of a part of the speech? A. That is all. ' Q. And you made tho synopsis of the drift aa it went along? A. Yes. Q. How did you select the parts where you should re port accurately, and the parts whoro you should give the '•drift? A. Whenever itwas possible to report correctly ' And fuU I did 60, aud when I was unable to keep up I gave Hhe substance. There were times during the speech, 'owing to the Blowneea with which the Hpeiker apoke. wheu a reporter writing in' longhand was^ahle to keep up with the remarks of the President. ¦ Q. Then this report waa not made by the aid of eteno graphy or eborthand? A. No. sir:' Q. Did you abbreviate or write' oilt the words in full when you did write? ¦ 'A. I abbreviatod in many inatances. ' Q. Do you recollect tbem? A. Idoi . ^. Can you gi\'e an instance of vone of your abbrevia tions? A. I cannot.' ' . h ¦ '¦' Q. Without any printed paper before you. how much of tbe President's apeech, as raade at Cleveland ontheSdof Septemberi can you repeat? A. None of it. ' Q. None ofit? A. None whatever; verbatim, none. Q. Do you think you could givo tho drift of sorae of it? A. I think I raight. a. As you understand it and recollect it? A.. Yes. . . Do you raean itto bo understood that you wrote dowii one eingle sentence of the Preaident'a speech, word for word, as it carae from his raouth? A, Yes. Q. Pointoutany such aentence?: A.. The, aentence that Was read by the raanager waa written out word for word. Q. Do you mean to aay that any ten conaecutive linea of, ¦your report printed in your newspaper, you wrote down in long hand, word for wordj as they carae from the .Preair ¦dent's mouth? A. I cannot tell now much of iti wrote do>vn at this distance of time ; I have tho impresBion,ibo w- ever, that there was as rauch of it as that, , ¦- , Q. Can you say anything raore thau that youi intended .toTcport, as nearly as you could and as well, under the circu raBt^auces, without the aid of short-hand faculty, what the President said? A. lean say in addition to that £art, tlierc are parts of the speech which aro reported as u said it. . : Q. Do ypu-aay so from your present memory? A. From my raemory of tho method with which the notes were taken. Q. What parta'can you bo sttCte to be verbatira? A. I' fmnotsjn'ear that they are hia absolute words in all casea, H ill s\^ear that it is an accurate report. Q. What do you' mean by accurate? Bill not iibsolute; I raean to aay .that it is a report which gives the general form of each sentcilco as it was uttered, porhnpB varying in ono or two worda. " Q. You mean to say you intended to report as Well as Tou could, without the aid of shorthand facilltiear" A. I fSay, in addition,' tiiat there are portions wbibh'arfrre- 'ported vcrl)atim. ^' . . '^ Q. Now, I want vou to tell me Whether that which pur- poits to bc verbtttini fa, to your raemory and knowledge, 'accurately reported? A. Itis accurately reported ; X cau not say it is abscdutely accurate. Q. The whole of it? A. YeK ¦ ' ' _ Q. In reference to the part of the speech of which you dia not profess to report verbatim, what assurance have you that yon did not omit part of the speech? A. I ende'v voredto report the antjstance and meaning of the speech; I cannot say that I did give it all? Q. What assurance have /on that aorae portions of the speech were not omitted entirely from your synojjUi-.fd view? A. I waa able to report nearly evevy sentence, and ara confident that I did not fail to take notes of any paia- graph of hie speeoh. ' Q. That is to say you aro confident that nothing which would have been a paragraph after it wae printed v. a» left out by you? A. Ho did not speak in paragraphs. Q. You say you are sure you did not leave out wbat wonl4 be a paragraph; did you leavejout what would he half a paragraph? A. I endeavored to give the substan -e ctf tbe President's remarks in every subject that the Preji- 4enl took up. , Q. This synoptical report which jis raade out, was it any thing but your original notea? A. It was condensed ftporti them. ' . . . : 1 .^. That- is to say, yqnv original pynoptical viewa as 'Writtfch down were again re&ucted iw a ahorter corape.id byyou that night?' A. Partly ao. • . Q. Still you think that inthat laat analysis vou h.id tbe whole of the Presidentfb speech? A. i endeavor.^d to give the raeaning o^ it. , Q, Canyon protehd tb say that, in reference to any of 'that portion of yonr report, it 58 pi'OiaeBted in a shape iu which any manshouldbe judged a« coming from his own mouth? . ' .¦! u , r '-' ¦Mr.BUTLERL.loibjectto the questioni Mr. EVARTS— I a,Bk of the witneaa if he professes to Btatethatiu this synoptical portion ofthe pi-mted speech 'made by hira it is BO produnedAs to be properly judged aa hftringcorae from the moiibh of the speaker. "'Mr. BUTLER— No objection^tothat. -- > Witnesfl— I can only sa.y that, to , the best of ray belief, this is a fair report Of what was sttid, ' -' Q. In your estiraation and belief/ A. In ray estiraation and belief. * Q. You spea^ of a reporter named Johnson, who took Sart, as I un'derstjlnd you, in that biisiness. What part id he take? A. He, also, took notes of what Mr. Johnson said. Q. Wholly independent of you? A. Wholly independefit of me. Q. And the speech, ' as printed in your 'paper, 'waa not ¦ frora hia notes? A. It Was raade up from raine, with the asaiatance of his. Q. Then you condensed and raingled the reporter, John son'a, report and your owh, and produced this printed re sult? A, Yes. - Q. What plan did Johnson proceed on in getting the draft of effect ofthe President's speech? A. Jobrison took as full notes aapOBsible.- Q. You raean posriblo'for biraJ ' A.' Yes. Q. How ranch of that report and how ranch of thatan- ' alysia or estiraaflon of what the President said was made out of your notes and how ranch of Johnsos'a? A. When ever Johnson's notes were fuller than raine luiodbiato correct raine. Q. Wafl that so in raany instances? A. It was nnt wo in a raajority of instanceB but in the minority— in a conaider able minority. Q: Did Johnaon Write longhand too? A. Yea. Q- What connection -haa Jf(bn?ou with you onthe paper? A. He ia the reporter ot the paper- ¦¦ Q; Was there no phonographic reporter to take down the epbech? A. There was no one tor our paper; there were reporters present, 1 believe, for other papera. Re-direct by Mr, BUTLER^Q. You have been aaked ¦about? the manner in ^^'hich you took the speech ; were there conaiderable interruptiona? A. There were. ', Q-' Was-there considerable bawling for the Preaident? A. There waa necessary bawling. Q. WhyneCessary?' A. Because of ttie interruptions of the croii d. w ¦ ,. Q. Was thecrowd'a noiay one? ' It waa. Q. Were the crowd, and the President bandying epithets? Mr. EVA'RTS— Tho question is What wjib daid. Mr. BUTLBR^I do not adopt tho language of the coun sel. I ,will repeat my aueation whether epithets weve thrown back and- forth between the President and thb crowd ? ¦ ¦ • . Mr. EVARTS— We object to the queation. The questiob ia, what was said. Every one does not know what bandy ing epithets ia. ' . . Mr. BUTLER, to tbe witness— Do you know wbat ban dying epithets it ? Mr. EVARTS— I suppose bur objection willbe first dis- poaed of ' - ¦ r^ Mr. BUTLER~I beg your pardon. However, I will 'withdi^W the question. My proposition is this-. ' Mr. EVARTS— (InterruptluB)— There Ib no objection to your withdrawing tho queHtion. Mr, BUTLER— I only Withdraw ray question as to the meaningof a word which ono of tho cOdusfil did not un derstand. (Laughter.) In Lord CroorgEi' Gordou'aease the 4Kes ofthe crowd were allovved to be put in evidence, but that queation precisely ia not raiflod here, "^bcpauso I am on the point of ehowing what wnSBalJijlthdrej'by way of inter- riiptiolia. It waa aaked whethorthere Wero interruptions Snd whether thfsro wae a crowd, and if the President topped in hia speech to throw back epithets at the crowd ' 'Mr. EVARTS--The nuostionB Which- we object to were' thoae about thq bandying of emtbOia-back aud forth be tween the President and the crowd. > n IMPEACHMENT OFy ANDREW JOHNSON; L which Mr. BUTLER— Iwill put it in another form. Q. Wbat was aaid^ by the crowd to the Preeidentand ,by the Pre.-i- dent to the crowd? A. ThePreBideut Was frequently in terrupted by cheers, hisses aud cries froQi those opposed" to hhn. Mr. BUTLER -You have a right to refresh your me mory by any memorandum or copy of a memorandum made by you at the time. Mr. EVARTS— No. Not by any cmpy of memorandum. Mr. BU I'LER— Yes. Any copy or memorandum whii you know to bt* a copy made at the time. Mr. BV^ARTS— We dp not regard a newspaper, aa a me- moraud ira. Mr. B,UTLER-Well, we may as .well have that settled, because when a man says I wrote down aa ber't I could, and put it in type withiu four hours from that tirae, |i,nd I know it to he-correct, I insifitthat as a rule of law that is A meraorandum, f^om which the witneas muy refresh his recollection. Mr. BVARTS-T-This witness is to apeak frora his recol lection, if he can. If hecannot, he is allouedaccordingly to n*fre.^h hia memory by ihe. memorandum whiph he made at the time. • ¦ Mr. BUTLBR-I deny that to be the rule of law. He may refresh his meraory by any memorandum whichhe, knows to tip correct. The Chwf Justice required Mr. Butler to reduce his questi)n to writing, Mr. BUTLER having reduced tbe question to writing, , put it to the witness in this forra :— I desiro you fo refresh ynitr reeoUection. from any menaorapdum made by you at or near tbe tirae, and then state what was said by the' crot^d to the President, and by the President to the crowd. Mr. EVARTS— That question we bave objeGted to. The Chief Justice asked the witheBSwheither that was a meraorandum raade by hira at the tirap? Witness— It is a copy of a memorandum made at the .tirae. ' '1 he Chief Justice— The witness haa-a right to look at a paper which he iknew to be a true-copy of a memoraudura, made at tbe time, Mr. BUTLER, to witness— Go on. Witness, reading frora the naper— The first inter ruption to the Pretidentwaa - ¦ Mr. EVARTS— We underatand tbe ruling of tbe Chair to be that the witness ie allowed to refresh his memory by louking a memorandum raade at tbe tirae, or what \fi the eqiiiv^iient, and tliereupon to state frora his meraory: thus refreshed, what the facts are, that >hc .might atate it trora his rapuipry, but not read frora the raeraorandura. Mr. BLJTLEU (o witness— Road it. Witne^B— The first interruption to the President occurred when he referred to the nara6 of Grentiral(jrrant,,and said be knew that a lan'ge nuraber of the crowd dp^ircd to see Gemral Crrant, and to hear what he had to aay, whereupon there were cheers for General Grant, and the President went in ; the next interruption occurred when he refprred to the object of his visit, and alluded to the narae ot Ste phen A. Douglaa; there were then cheeks; the next cries of interruption occurred at thetime the Preaideut used thialanguage:— *T was placed on the ticket (meaning the ticket for the Presidency) with the dL^tinguiahod citizen now no more,'' whereupon there were ones of, "It's a pity," '^too bad,'* "iwfortunate ;" the President proceeded, "Yes, T know some of you say 'unfortunate.' " Q. What was then aaid by the crowd?. Al ThePresident went ou to say "It was unfortunate for some that God was on high—" Mr. EVARTS— (InterruptingWaBked if the point raade by the learned manager was tbis, that in following; the examination of this witness he could ahow there were interruptions for spaces; thatjis the whole raatter aa I un deratand it. Now the witness is reading the Prpbideut's speech, which ia not yet in evidence. « Mr. BUTLER— And as I underttand it, heis not reading the Preaident'e apecch, but giving such j^ortiousof it only AB to sbo^v where the interruption carae in ; now when he compareB the inteft-uptiona with tbe portions of the speech where he took notes you will see why there was time to take pjrtlotts verbatim,. i The Chief Justice, to witneaa— Look at the momoFandum and then teatify from raemory at the present time. Witneas— The next interruption that occurred was^when ' the President remarked that if hie predeceaaor h&d lived-,, j Mr, EVARTS— Tbe question was, if the interruption, their duration and theircauBe Mr. aUTLjCR-^' beg your, pardon*, I put the question, and there was ho objection to it— What did the President sny to the crowd* and what did the crowd say to the Pre sident ? Now, I want that. (Laughter.) To witneas— Qo on and answer. > . , < ' ., WitnoriB- When this reraark waa made the crowd re- spondLd, "Never, never," and gave three cheers for Con gress; the Preeident went on to Bay "I came here as I was passing along atndbeiQgicallod on for the purpose of ex- . changing views " ,, ,, , ' The Cliief Justice^ interrupting— Mr. Manager, do you underatand that the Wiitnoas Ib to read the speech? .Mr. BUTLER— No, sir ; be is akipping whole paragraphs, and he is ouly reading ^There tho ihteiTUPtion came m. To witaeflB— rJuBt use thu latter words of the President. Witness- Whea the President remarked that he carae hero for the purpoie of ascertaining w^hat was wrong, there were cries "You are,'* long continued obeera. The Preaident inquired, later in bja speech, who could 8ut;hia finger on any acf of the President's deviating f^om 10 riight, whereuipon there were cheers and to raake intorruption last ')r sorae tirae? A. Yes, frequently, for several ^inutes, Q, In that tirae w«uld vonbe.aple to get up your repori? for sorae tirae? A. Yes, frequently, for several Q, In that tirae w«uld yonbe aple to get up yt _._ _ .. A. I was able to make during the raoat of them a verbatim report of what the President said. Re-cro88-examination by Mr. EVARTS. Q. You madte a meraorandum of tbo tirae'of these inters ruptions? A. I did. . u. Of thoBe criea and hiaaea? A. I did. > Q. While you were doing that you could .catch njP ¦with the President's epeecb,- could you. (Laughter;) Now, have you not, in each' ctateinent you have raade of these interruptions, read frora the newBpaper belone you? A. I have read fromthe newspaner; I thmk that every one of them was iu the newspaper. Q. Are you nnt quite pure of it ? A.I ara not poaitive. Q. Without that newspaper, did you recollect any of those interruptions? A. I do. Q. All ofthera? A. I abonld not have beenable to give tbera all witho.ut tbe aid ofthe memorandum- Q. You raade a report of those inter I'uptions on youv notes? A. Yes. 6. Of all that the crowd said? A. Not of all. K why not of all? A; I made notes cf all that I was able to catch. 0. You made notes of all that you were able to catch and put down, and yet you say you were able to catch up with the President? A. I gave my first attention to koep- ingiipwith thePreaident; whenever there was tiraoto put tlie interruptioUB down und the cries, I did so. Senator (Crimes put the following question to the wit ness in wr ting:— I desire tbe ivitneas to Bpocify tbe particular part of the report; as published, whicn was supplied by tbe reporter Johnson. Witness— It is impossible tor me to do that nt this tirae. Mr. BUTLER— State whether any- apecial part of it ws9 Bupplied by him, or whether it was only connected by Mr. Johnson's notea. A. The report was raade out from my notes and coirected bv Mr. Johnson; I cannot say whether there were auy otber sentences on Mr. Johnaon^B notes or noti Q, Stato whether long practice in reporting wonld on* able a person, by long hand, to make out a subatantially ' accurate report? Mr. EVARTS— Ask whether thiB witness can do it? Witupsa- 1 have had considerable practice in. reporting in that way, and can make out a subatantially accurate report. Examination of Daniel C. lUcEwen. Daniel C. McEwen sworn and examiuud hy Mr. BlJiV LEI^-Q. What is your profession? A. A ahort-hand re- |)orter, : Q. How long bas that been your profesBion? A. About four or five yeara. , (J. Were you employed in September, 1866, in reporting for any paper? A. 1 was. - ^. Mat paper? A. The New York IforW. Q. Did you accompany Mr, Johnson and tbe Presidcntm jparty when they wentto lay tjtoe, corner-stone ofthe moniv ment m honor of Mr. Douglas? A. I did.| „Q.> Where did y»n join the party? A. At West Point, New York. IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 93' Q. Howlongdldyoucontinne with the party? A. I con finned until it arrived at Cincinnati on its retum. Q. rid you go profeBBionallr aa a r^orter? A. I did. U. Hadyou accommod'atlonaaBRiich? A. I had. Q. Had you the entre« of tho Presidential car? A. I had. Q. Were you at Cleveland? A. I waa. ^U. Pid you make a report of the PreaidenVs apeech at "ae'veland from the balcony? A. I did. How? A. Stenograpnicalty. Have you your notes hereT A. X have. fWitnesses produced thein.} _ Have you, at ray request, coined them out since yon liave been here? A. I have, ^Q. Is thia (handing a paper to the witness) a copy of ibSm? A. It ia. ., Q. Is it an accurate copy from yonr noted?. A, It is. Q. How accurately are your notes a representation of fho speeoh? A. My notes T consider very accurate bo Jar an I took tbem ; aome few sentences in the Bpeech were leftoutby contuBion in the crowd, but I have in those feasob in ray transcript inclosed in brackets the parts about Vhich I ara uncertain, ' '-Q. Where they are not inclosed in brackets, how are they? A. They are correct. Q. Was your repprt publiahed? A. I cannot say; I took notes of tho speecn, ahd knowing the latenesB of the hbur, eleven o'clock or after, abd 'hat It wsb impoBrible for me to write out a report of the speeeh and send it to tbe paper 1 repreBcnted, therefore I went to the telograpn ofnce after the apeech was given, and dictated sorae of ray notes to other reporters and correapoodenta, and we made a report which wis given to the Agent of the Aasociated prees, Mr. Gobright. Q. Did the agent ofthe ABBociatcd Press accompany tbe Presidential party for the purpose? A. Yea. Q, Was it his business and duty to forward reports of the QieecbeB? A. I auppoaed it to be. u. Did you ao deal with him? a. i om. Q. Have you put down the cheerB and intCrrnptioBS of the crowd, or i^ny porilon of them? ^. I have tint down a portion of them ; It was impossible to get all. Q. Was there not a groat deal of confusion and noiee there? A. A great deal. ' Q. Were tiiere expresaiona of ill feeling and temper? A. 1 think there was. Q. On the part of tbe crowd? A. Yes, rir. Q. How on tbe part ofthe Preaident? A. I consider that He was a little excited. Q. Waa anything aaid there to him by the crowd about IiliB keeping hia dignity? A. I h wve'ft not 'in my notes. -O. Do you r^oifect ift? A. I do i^ot recollect It. Q. Was there 'amything said about hia not getting mad? A, Yea, flir.'' ¦^ Q. Did the crowd cautlOn him abont not getting mad? A. The words used were- "Don't get mad, Atody," Q. Did he appear conaiderably excited at that moment when they told himHot to get mad? Mr. EVARTS aaid that waa nbt a part of the present in- fldiry. Mf. BUTLER remarked— I want to get as much aa I ean f^ora this witness* meraory, and as much as I can from bis notes, so with both together we may have a perfect tra^j- Ecriptof the proceedings. The allegation denied ie tbat there waa a acandalous and disgraceful acene, the cobdi- tiona b^ing that the counsel for the President claim free- dora of speech, and we claim decency of Bpcech. We are now trying to ahow the indecency qf the occasion, Mr. EVARTS— I understand tceedom of Bpeeeh in tbis oonhtry lo mean liberty to speak properly and discreetly. Mr. BUTLER— ^I regard freedom of speech in tbis ; nhuntry as freedom of .t^e private citizen to Bay anything In a decent manner, Mr. EVARTS— Yes, it Ib the same thing, and wbo ia to Judge of che decency. . Mr. BUTLER— T^e court before which a man is tried Hn violating the' laws. Mr. EVARTS— Did yon ever hear of a man being tried for freedom of speech. Mr. BUTLER— No; but T saw two or three who ought to lU^e been. (Laughter in the pourt.) 'Totbe witnesB— I .was asking you whether there waa csnaiderable excitement in the manner of the President at the tune he was cautioned by the crowd not to get raad. A. I was not standing where I could Bee the President ; I could not know his manner ; I only heard tbe tone of nis i voice. Q Judiflng from what you heard be seemed exeitgd? A. I do not khow what his manner is,f rom personal acquaint* ance, when he is jfngry. Croas-exaraiued |y Mr. EVARTS.— Q. Did you report the whole of the Inresident's speech? A^ The hour was late and I left ahortly before he cloaed ; I do not know how .long before the close Of hiBispeech^ .' . r, - ' Q. So that your report does not purportto give the wbole apeech? A. Noh sif. Q. From the tiihe that he commenced i^til this point at wmch you left, did you report the, whole qf his Sppech? A. No,^ir; certain sentences were broken ofit by the in terruptions of tbe ¦crowd. Q. Bul; aside from the interruptions did you continne through the Whole of the speech to the point at which you Jeftr Ag Idid. Q. DSd you make a report *pf it word for word as you .jDpdsed? A. Yea, sir, as I understood it , Q, And did you not.take word for, word the interruptions rfthe aaaembly? A, I did not; I took the principle ex- damationa: Icoaldnot hear all of them. ' Q. And thia copy, or transcript, which you produce, when did you mace it? A. I made that abous two weeks aince; after I was Bumraoned before the managers of im-'' peachment. Q'. Can you be as accurate or aa confident in the tran script taken after the lapec uf two veara. ae if it had been made recently, when the speech waa delivered? A. I ge nerally find, that when a apeech ia fresh on my mind, I write my nutes with more readiness than when they have becorae old; bnt as to the correctness of the report, I t^ink'I can raake ab accurate a transcript of the notee' now as I could havo done then. Q. You havenothingtohelp you whan you tranBcribe after the lapse of time out the notes before you? A. That Ib all. Q. And are you not awarethatin phonographic writing there is often obscurity, from the haste and brevity of tbe notation? A. There sometimes is. '3le-direct by Mr. BUTLEft— Thecounsel on the otber side asked-the politics of the Cleveland Leader. May I ask yod the politics of the New York Worldf I have always nnderstood them to be Deraocratio, £xauiination of Edvrin B. Stark. .Edwin B. Stark, sworri and examined by Mr. BUTLER— Q. What i'i your profedpion? A. I practice the law now. - Q. What was your profession in Septeraber, U66? A. Iwas an editor in Cleveland, and I do more or IC:^s oftt now. Q. Did you report the speech of Andrew Johnaon^Presi^ dent of the United States, frora the balcony of the Cleve. bind Hotel on the night of the 3d<^ September, 1866? A. Yes. -..-,, I Q. For what paper? A, The Cleveland ^era/d. Q. Did you, take short-hand notes of it? A. Yes, I did. Q. Wns it written out by you aud publluhed as written out by you? I have ; it waa. a. Have you your short-hamd notcaf I have not. . Are they in exiatence? A. I suppose not; 1 paid no attention to thera, but I suppose they were thrown into waste basket? Q. Did you ever compare the printed speech in tbe He^ ram with your notes or with tbe raanuacript? A. I diA with the manuscript that night; I compared the printed slips with the copv taken frora ray original notes, JOi How did it cbmpdre? A. It was the same. ^. Were they slips of the paper tbat was published nexi day? A, /fhoy were juat the same, with auch typographi cal ctM'rections as wero made then. Q.'-Have you a copy of the paper? A.A. I have [pro ducing it.] ' ' ' Q Can vou now state whether thia ia a BubBtantiallv ac- curaite report in this paper of what Andrew Johnson aaid? A. Yea, sir, it ia generally ; there are sorae portions whit^ were cut down, and I can point out just where these places are. , Q. By beine cut down, vou mean the substance given in* Btoad of tho worda? A. Yea, air. ' Q. Does it appear in the report what part is Bubstantially and what part is verbatim? A. Not to auy person but myselfi To witness— Point out what pari is subBtltuted and what part is accurate in tbe report. 'Witness— Da you wishme to go over the whole flpeech or that purpose? Mr. BUTLER— I will for the present confine myself to such portions as are in the article. If my learned friends wiah you to go over the rest they will ask you. The witnes.s comraenced a little before wnere tbe apecifi cation oommences in the article of impeachment— I will read just what Mr. Johnaon said on that point. Mi*. BUTLBR-Do hO. Witness- He said, " Wbere-ifl the man living, or the wo man, or the co]mmunity whora I have wronged ; or where is thb person who can place his finger on one single pledge that Ihave violated, or one singlo violation of the Consti tution of my country; what tongue do-a he speak; what religion does he profess? let hira come forward and put his hnger upon one pledge I have violated ;" there were aeveral interruptions, and various remarks were made, oJ which I have noted one, because it wia the only one that Mr. Johnson paid any attention to— that wa)s a voice said, "Hang Jeff. Davis! hang Jeff. DaviBl" The Preaident- '^Hang Jeff. Davia!— why don't you?" There were then some applause and interrapt- tions, .and he repleid, "Why don't you?" There was again applauaes and interruptions, and the Presideht went on; have you not got the courta?— bave you not got the attorney-general?— who ia your chief justice?- who has ref need to set at the trial? There ^vere then some m- terruptiooa and applause, and he said:— I am not the pro secuting attornev; I am not the jury, bnt I will tell you what I did do— I called on your CongresB, which is trying to break up tho government; at tbat point there were interruptions and confusion, and there may have been words uttered there by the President which I did not hear, but I think not; then the President went on to aay —but let the nfejudices pass — . * Mr. BUTLER— Go on to the conclusion where youre* ported accurately. Witneefl commenoing— He said, 'Tn bidding you fareWeU, here to-night, I would ask yoii with all the paina that Congreew has taken tocalurainateme, what has Congress done? Has it done anything to ren-tore' Uie Union ofthe States? On the contrary, has it hot done everything to prevent it?— and, becauae I stand now, asl did when the Rebellion comraenced, I have been denounced as a tr-aitOF.' Mv countrymen here tO-night, who has Buffered more than I? , Who has run greater neks than I? Wbo hk» borne more than I? ButCongrCBB, factious, domineering. IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW; JOHNSON. tyrannical Congress,' has nndertaken to poisdn tho raindS of the Araerican people and create a feeling agaJinat'me." Bo far were Mr. Jonnson's words: I ban'e completed the sentence here in thiit faahion :— '"In conaequence of tbe manner in which I have.diBtributed the public patronage;" those were not Mr^ JohnroU'B words, but a condensation in asumraajT nay of the reasona which he gave, jnst at tbat p lint, for the maligning — t Mr, ffiVARTS to Mxi Butler— Do you propose to put hem In? ;• Mr. BUTLER— We do. . I observe in the answer of tbe President that objection isansdo that we did not putin all lie ajiid, and I raean to give all. - 1 Mr. EVAKTS cross-exarained the witness as follows:^ Q. What isthe date of that newapaper you have? A.' September 4, 1866. Q. Did yon lUake a stenographic report of the whole, of th& President's spefeeh/ A. laid with ono exception.. ; ' I- Q. Whato.^ffieption was that/ A. It was a part of the speech in which he anoke about the Freedmen's Bureiiu.; .it wae in the latter half of the speech, eomcwhat in the details apd figunea which I omitted to take down:i Q. Did you write down your notes in full? A. No, sir, Q. And you have Ihot now either the notes or Imytraai- scriptof tliem? A. Only tbia inthe newspaper. Q, Dy,you prepare for the newspapere the report that was pumiabed?, A. 1 did. Q. And you prepared it on tbe plan of some partver-i batirti and-sorae part condensed? A. ^Yea, sir, - > . Q. What was your rule of condenfiation and tbe motive? A. I had no definite rule ; but I can give the reaaon why I left out a part of what waa said about the Freedman's .Buf reau. , '• .*¦ ' .. >¦ -i .; ¦ ' .' > Mr. EVAKTS- Tbatisnotcondensedatall.; i .''' ^ Witness- Yea, air; a< part of itwas not taken, and what Idid take of it was aoraewhat condensed. I . ...^ r,'- , Q. AVhat waayour rule in relation to wbat yon jrat verbatim into tM report, and what you cbudenaed? How did you detennine what part you would give one way and what part another?, A. Perhapa I was inHueneed somewhat by what I considered would be a little raore spicy or entertaininc to the reader. ,Q, Ii» which interest-in the interest of tbe President or hie opponent"? A- I.do not know that. , . ., . Q. On which side were you? A- I was opposed to the president. , ¦ '* Q., Bnt you did not know where you thought the in terest .was when you selected the spicy 'part? .A.. I, was very careful iJa all tho8qa)arta.,'iVihere:ttire .was consider able excitement in the crowd, to take aowu carefully what tbe Preiiideut'Baid'. '< ' ¦ < Q. The part which the crowd was moat interested in yon jtook down carefuUy? A. Yes. \ ¦ ' ¦,' Q.. Apd thfe part which the crowd seeraed to have the mostintereat was the part in which thoy raade the meat '. oatcryf'i A.''!i5ett,.Bir.j, , ;i . ' ' ¦> jj, . ¦¦ ' > Q. Are pou able to say that there ia a single expresaion in thsit part: of.ViJ.w, rypprt given aubstantiaUy ?vhieb was jised by thePije«dent,^o.^at.they aJ» tbe.wordsaa tbey fell from nis lips? A. No, sir. I think it is not the case! in those particular ipartsT which I condensed, I did ao by tho use in sorae parts qf .my own words. • .Q. Was niqt yewr-rule of condensation partly when vou pot tired of writing out? No, f^ir. As it was getting on between three and four o'cljock in tl«e niorning, I waa directed to cut down, aud towards the last I didao. . Q. More towards tbelast.thau in the early "part of the specQb, BO as io bc read.v to go to press? A. YeB,;8ir. ¦ , Mr. JEVAKTS— We object to this report as no report.of tbe President's apeech. \».vt& Herala? A. Atthat-tirae it was what waa called JohnMon-Kopubliean. Thh editor'of tbe Merald. had. the Foi*t OJlico at the time. Mr. B,yTLER said bo proposed to offer the Leader^s re port of Mr. Juhnson> speech, as: sworn to bv Mr. Hudson. Mr. EVARTS-That we object to.. Thetrounda of the objection aie made raanifcet, doubtleeB, to tbe, observation of the Chief duHtice and of tbe Senators, and are greatly ejihauced \vhen we find that tbe raanagers areiijj)oaaes- 'Biou of the original notes of the ehort-hand writer of the ''whole speech, aud of his trauscript made therufrora. sworn to by hini. . We eubnjit that the aubstitution.fQr that,ovi- dence-of the \^- hole Bpe'eeh thua sutbenticaced, the state ment of Mr. Hiid-jon, ae testified to by bim^ is against the first principles of justice or of evidence. , Hehas nottcstitiod hoiymuchof tbe report ia his and iowinuch.of ithJ the reporter, Johuaon's. Beeides, itis for the gi'eat part a condensed etatement, directed by cic- cnraet;tnces. The sarae objection may bo made to the ae cond jBeraW report. , . Mr. BUTLEL^ Baid— Idonot .propose to fljrgue the quea- ,tion, but if we ivcre ^try^g apy other case for subntantive word& would not this be aufficient proof?, Itdo not prpoose tp 'witbdra\v the other report of Mr, McEwfiru j I propose to put it in. subject to be read and commented npoi} by. tlie geutleihau on theother aide, and propone to pnlf the other reporta in alao, so thatlwe canlhave all three re- £orta the Post otfiee report^ the Reniiblican report and the 'einocratic report My nHturaVIcaniiug will lead me to this parucnlar.rcport as the oneon which! raean to rely, bu- ^cause It IB sworn to expresriy by the party aa having been written dowu by him hiraself, publinhcd by himaelf and corrected by himself : and I ara .-urpriacd at the objcctioaj. Mr, E\ ARTS— Nothiug can better raauifesttho (lOundi- inctss ot the objection thau the etateraent ot tho manager Hee elected by prufcrouoo a report made by and through tbe agency of political hostility, and on a plan of oondeui. wbenl gave thera tbe report of my enemies to cancel those of ray friends? Ia all virtue and propriety confined to Deraocratic reports? At one tune, I .think, President sation, and on a method cf nondenBing another mana notea, inateadof a bwotu report by a phonqgrapherwho^ took Briery word,, jn-bo hnngB his original .nptes and a trauHcript ofthem, and sweare to their accuracy ; and here, deliberately in the fft(a» of this testimony as, to ^yhat wm said there authentically proved, and brought mto court |a bej related, the honorable manager proposes to present.a fpeech, with notes made *nd publiHhed, on the motive and with the feelings, and under the infiuence, and ou the raethod which has /been stated.. We object to itaa evidence of the words epoken. . , ^ , , Mr. BUTLER-If, Mr. president and Senators, I had not lived too long to be astonished at^anytbing, 1 bhould b^ surprised at the tone in which thie pnippwirion i.^ put. Db I keep back frora these gentlemen anybody's report. • Doil not give them all I can lay my buids on. Shall I not uae the reporta of ray frienda and not-jthose of my enemies, "' ¦'¦ -^ — -- leiniea to cancel jnriety conti'ned „., „ ^ _, think, President Johnaon, ifl recollect aright would n^jtbave liked mo very well to look in the world's report tor hira, and whea the^ehaage took.place,,e3Sftctly,.3idp,not,kuow, thereforci I bave this report. Why? Because it is thei fulieat and completest report. . r /. ¦/¦ i- ' j .',;„ ^ . The reafon I did not rely jinon/'Mr. McEwen's" report ifc thathe testified qn tbe. stand that be got tired and went away, and did not report the whole speech^ Mr. Stark and Mr. McEwen both swear that tbey left out portions, I could not therefore, put theae-ind. If I did I might be met by tbe objection that it was not tbe whole* report, .^r^ are three reports, representing jtbre.e degrees flf opimQ)% and we offer them all. ,i • ! ¦, ' Mr-iBVARTg^Dwcredit ifl now thrown on the most a*. thentic report, on accpunt of oraisslous, and because iti| aiPeraocratic; r^eport I did not know before that tl^ question of the authenticity of a > stenographic report d4 pends upon the poetical ¦opim.onB;pfthfc stenographer. , Ws subipit thatith^re u n^sijich eyidence; no living witness jwbb.f^pm meraory can rt^eat'tbe Proeidcnt'B speech, and there la no auch authentication of notes ib any case buf Mir. -McEwen'B, which, makes the pubUc ppeech evidenpi Mr. BUTLER— I ahull nol debate (the matter furfbe^ tban. aijnply to Bay that:! have not made any such propQh sition. Ithink thia ia an accurate report ao lar as we hav? put it into the aiticle.'' It is nn accurate report, a sw^om report,'and raade by aman .whom we can trust, and do trust. The other we think is just as ^cc^rate, perbAni, JThatqueatjoUfWerdonot ficinto, iwe siraply put them SS so tbajifjthere is a choice ihe Ireaident can have thP benefit of it. ,¦¦,,¦,;;,. The President coipesin bore a^dsayiin hla>answ^r that we will not give hira the full benefit of all he said, aui| ¦yyhpn-we take great pains. to bring everybody hprjo Hap raade tv report, ^ud wnen^ wo'offer all the reports, thew^ fiays, "Yo;i mi^.st;take a, given one,'' ; So that we anawet, Wetsike the ono, bujt Wie take\'ill nqj raake that objection, i , -} Mr. BUTLER— WojW^nt it fnlly understood Vve putftl -Mr. McEwen'a report qf.the sreecb as^the Btand.ard repjojg and we pnt.in tbeiother two, bo that ift-ihe Prejtldtnt coimp with witncsse^tiq deny the, accuracy of ttMBireport. thenM shall bave the ,additionaltion,flf the', {Otl|sr.tf$, reporte. . i . < ¦ -. . ' - ¦ , Mr., EVARTS— The learned manager ja fainiliar .^ Q. Do the names of thosff panersjudlcate tbeir party proclivities, or are they reversed? A. They are re versed ; the Democrat means Kepublican, and the Be~ publican means Democrat ; I was attached on or about the Sch of September, 1S66, to the Missouri Democrat; 1 reported a speech delivered -from tbe balcony of the hotel in St. Louis by Audrew Johnson ; the speech was delivered between eight and nine o'clock in th^eveo- Ing: there was a crowd In the streets, and also on the balcony ; also where I was ; I was within two or three feet of the President while he was speaking; I don't know where the Presideut's party was; I have no re collection of seeing onCfOf the party on the balcony; I believe the President came to answer a call from the crowd in the street apparently; I' know there wasa very large crowd on the street^ and continual cries for thePresident; in response to these cries I suppose be came out; he had. Sir, been received in tbe afternoon by the municipal authorities; the Mayor made him an addregs;he answered tbat address; I reported that speech ; I took every word. Q. How soon was it written ont after it was taken? A, Immediately, by my dictation ; the first part of the. speech previous to the banquet was written out tn the rooms of the Southern Hotel ; that occupied about half an hour, I should think; we then attended the banquet, at which speechea were made; immediately after the close of the banquet I went to the Repub- tca?) office, and there' I dictated tbe speech to Mr. Monnirhau and Mr. McHenry, two of the attaches of tbe Republican office. Q. There was a banquet given to the President by the city? A. Yes, sir; immediately after speaking from the balcony, at thtit banquet, the President made a very short address. Q. After tbat speech was written cat; was it pub lished? A. On tbe next moming in the Sunday Re- pubeican; after it was published I revised the republi cation by my notes; immediately after the speech wae published in tht^ Sunday Moming Republican,! went down to the Democrat office in company with iny associate, Mr. Bd*iti F. Adams, and we very carefnlly revised the speech for the Monday morning Demoerat; it wns on the same day; on the same Sunday that I made the revision : when I made the revision I had my notes ; I compared the speech as printed with those notes at that time and. since; my recollection is that there was one or two simple corrections of errors in transcribing, on the part of the printer; that is all I rememberin tbe way of corrections; it was a little over a year ago; I was summoned here by the Com mittee on the New Orleans Riot, I think; it was a little after receiving the summons' I hunted up my notes and aeain made a comparisou with the speech; the second comparisou verified ray correctness. Q. In regard to the particularity of the report whe ther you were unable to report so correctly as to give iuaccaracy prou unci ation? A. Yes, sir, I did so in many instances: I can't tell where my original notes are now ; I eearched for them a little after I wae sum- monod here, bnt I failed to find them ; 1 had them at thetime I wae exatnined before the Committee on the New Orleans Hiots ; I have no recollection of tbem sincethat time; I have a copy of that paper. (Wit ness produces printed paper.) This is it, Q. From yoiir knowledge of the manner in which you took speeches, from your knowledge of the man ner in which you corrected it, state whether yon are enabled to say the paper whioh I hold in my band contains an' accurate report of the speech uf the Prcsl deut deliyered on that occasion. A. I am able to say it is an accurate report. Mr. BUTLER said he proposed, if there was no ob jection, to offer the paper in evidence, and he proposed to do BO,, also, if there wero objections. (Laughter.) Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS.— Took down the entire speech from the President's month, word for . word, as he delivered it; in th« transcript from my notes and in this publication I preserved that form and degree of accuracy and completeness ; it is all of the speech ; no part of it is condensed or paraphrased; iLis all of the speech ; besides the revision of the speech which I made on the Sunday following the de livery of the speech, I made a revision of it a year ago, a;tthe time that I was summoned before the couh mittee of Congress on the New Orleans riot, at Washington; I can't say. when tljiatwas; it was over a year ago; I cannot fix the date precisely ; I was then inquired of in relation to the speech, and pro duced them to that coramittee; I was uot examined before any other committee than that; my testimony was reduced to writing. Mr. BUTLER— W^s your testimony before the New Orte.ins Riot Committee published? A. I am not aware whether it was or not. > « Mr. BUTLER then put m a copy of the St. Louis DemocraVs report of the President's speech in St. Lonis, made on September 8, 1866. The speech was read In full by the Clerk. The raost offensive por tions are set out in the third specification of tbe tenth article. It contains a paragraph predicting tbat the Fortieth Congress, constituted as the Thirty-seventh Congress, would ti^^ to impeach and remove him from office ou some preteuse of violating ths Coostitatiou or refusing to enforce some laws. Testimony of J. A. Dean. Joseph A. Dean, sworn aud examined by Mr. BUT- LBY— I am a reporter; Ihave been in the bueiness five years; Iam a short-hand wt*iter; I joined the President's party when it went to St. Lbuis, via Cleve land ; I joined it in Chicago ; I wns in the President's party at St. Lonis; I reported Allthe speeches made there; I was with the party as correspondent for th« Chicago Republican; I made the report for tbe St. Louis Times; 1 have a pari bf my notes ; there wa« speaking on the steamboat; I reported that speech ; I think it was a speech in 'answer to an addres^s of wel come, by Captain Leeds, who represented a coipmit- tee of Citizens which met at Afton ; I made that re port in short-band writing, and wrote it ont; that evening the report was made for the St. Louis Times; and repiirted for a pnper of strong Democratic poli tics ; I corrected the inaccuracies of grammar; that is all ; I have since writteu out from my notes so far as I have notes; this paper is m my hand writing from my notes ; it is an exact transcript so far as it goes.; it is an accurate report of the speech as made by An drew Johnson, with the exceptions I have mentioned. Mr. STANBERY to Mr. Butler— Is that the steam boat speech? Mr. BUTLER— No, it'is the speech from the bal cony of the Southern Qdtel. ' Witness— The' flrst speech is the speech at the Lin-t dell Hotel; the otber is the speech at the' Southeru'- Hotel. Mr. BUTLER to witness— Take the one at tbe Southern Hotel. So far as chat report goes, is this an accurate report of the speech? A. It is, but it ia not all here, because I have lost part of my notes. Q. Whereabouts did it commence? A. The speech commences in the middle of a sentence; the first words are:— "Who bas sba^ckles on their limbs and who are as much nnder the control and will of their masters as the colored nien who are scnancipaced." Witness (to a Senator)— This speech was made at the Southern Hotel in Sc, Louis; the sneech then goes through as printed to the end; I have not compared the transcript with this paper (the St. , Louis DeTno- erat). Mr. BUTLER offered the transcript ns evidence. 98 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. Cros'g-examined by Mr. STANBERY- My report was linblished in the St. Lonis Times on the Sunday following; I thibk the 9th of Septiem^er. <^. How much more time dcms it'rcquire a short-hand 'writer to write ont hjs notes in lohg-ha:nd than is re quired In taking the notes? A. We .generally reckon the, difference in the, races between' long and shortr hand about six or seven to one. - I A. J.'s OratoricBl Povrers. Re-direct by Mr. BUTLEE— Do I understand you to say that the whole of the speech was published lu the Timeal A. No, sir,. not the wbole ofit; itwas con densed for publication ; it was considerably condensed ; Mi'i,'John8i»n''iea fliifent speaker, but a very incoherent oiie^ he frequently repeats his words ; he is tautologi cal ; very verbose ; that enables him to be taken with more ease; it is so in my experience that there are men who, by practice of Jong-hand atid by abbrevia tions, can follow a speaker pretty accurately wbo ejieaks as Andrew Johnson speaks; Ithink tbey can give the sense of his speech without doing him any m^nsiice. Ql How ib it when taking into consideration inter- rrtptions? A. The reporter would have to indicate the Interruption ; he would not writo'them out. Q. But could he get the sense ofthe speaker; A. Tes he could. -By Mr. STANBERY-^A long-hand writer, you say, mwy take the sense aud substance of a spetech ; that is, be inay take the sense and 'substances as to his ideas of what they are? A. Yes, his own view of what the speaker is saymg. !¦ To Mr. Butler— By dictating a report from the notes to another person it can be written out much more rapidly. K. T. Chew Examined. Eobert T. Chew, sworn, and examinedby Mr. BUT LER.— I am employed in the State Deparcment; I am Chief Clerk in the State Departmeut. Q.' Itis a part of your duty to super'^'i'Be' cothmis- liohB that are iisBued? A. A comraission isfir^t written out by a person who is called the Commission Clerk ofthe department; it is brought tf>. me and by me aent to the Preaideut; When it is returned with the President's signature it is submitted by rae to tbe Secretary of Stace, who countersigns it ; then it goes to tbe CommisBitraClerk for the seal to be affixed to it;, when a-comraission does uot Ijelong to, mydepart- m%bt, if it ia for the^Treasnry }t go,e<5 to the Treasury ; tbat is to say th'e commissions of officers of the Trea- Buj;y are prepared at ray depa,rtment; for Comptroller, Auditor, Treasurer, .A.ssistant Treasurer, Auditors of the Mint, Collectors of the Revenue, .etc. ; for Secre tary and Assistant Secretary also; after tbey are pre pared they are sent to the Treasury; these belong to my office ; are issued, frpm. ;iiy oiOdce, from the Depiart- ment of State. Q. Have the kindness to tell na whether, after the passage of tbe Civil ^e^ure of Office a'ct, any change wjyS mude in the commiasion of i>fficers of your depart ment co conforin to.'that act ? A. There was. Ql What was that '.change ; tell ns hpw the commission ran iu that reppect befoire, ,andbiiw'|it ran afterwards ? A. The lorm of the old commission was " during the pleapure of the President of the United States for the time being." These words bave heen stricken ^biit, and the Words substituted "subject to the conditions prescribed by law.** Q. Dues that apply to all commissions ? A. It ap plies to all comml,Bsiona, , , 'Q. When was that change made? A. Shortly after the paseuiie of tl\e ciyil Tftnure,of pffice act; I cannpt exactly 'say when the first came up making it neces- 'sary for the ComlplHSipn Clerk to prepare a copimis- slon; he applied for instructions under that act; the, subject was Chen examined at the deparcment;, that ehdiige was mivde after, -^he exj.imiu ation.; the case was submitted by the Secretary to thp. examiner, and on his opinion the ctiaugp was made, I think, by order of the Secetarv ; we print opr commissions on, parch ment from a" copper-plate form; the copper-plate was changed to conform ; we have blank ;Cprrae of, the va rious kinds tif commiBsions iasued by our department; prior to the passagq of.the act of March 2, 18^7,. being the Civil Tenure uf OfficeJet, the commission tohold o^ce for or duriiij the pleasure of the Prfsident for the time being, were all issued in fhat forcn; after the change all comnfiissious have ,txeen issued, in the changed forn\; tdk>wn,to this day ; no 'coramission whatever io any officer has been seut ont from the department since the pasaage of tb-^ ¦ act. except in that'chanEred form, that I am aware of; there could not have been any except by accident without my knowing it. Mr. .BUTLER put the forms of commission in evi dence. ' Croaa-examin ation by Mr. STANBERT— Q. The old forras contained this cl^iuse, as I nnderstand it:— **The said officer to hold office Bufihg the pleasure of the Preaident ofthe United Statea for the time being?" A. Ye?, sir. , . ,.. „_.j -.,- '- -' ;„ Q. These. words, ybn say. ^re left out? A. Yes, sir, ana these other words are maerted- *'Subject to the conditions prescribed by law.*' , Q. Have you. ever cha|ig^a, one of .your plates or forma so as to introduce in place of what was there before these words— "To hold until removed by the President, with the consent of the Senate?'" A. No, ,' sir; no, commission basTbe.^n issued to the beads of departments diflferent from thoae which were issued bef(?re .the Tenure of Officc.act,that I am aware of. Q. Have you a separate plate for the commiasions of heads of dgparlmenta?- . A. I cannot., anawer that question ; I recollect uo instance in which any change has been niade there. Mr. BUTLER— Has any cbmmieEiibn beSri iSSned to ' the head of a department since M^rcb 3, 1867? ' A. I do not recollect 'it.' ¦-'',' -^^ ' ,. Mr. BUTLBR-!-Then of course there is'no change. ' Mr. STANBERY— Of course not. ¦ ' To the witness— Q. How I'ong have yon been chief clerk? A. Since 'July, 1866; I have been in the officb since July, 1833;'i:hat'is thirty-tbree years; in all that time, before this ehange, all coraraissions rap in this way:— "During the pleasure of the President for the time being." Mr. BUTLER-^Db yon know Mr. Seward's hand-' writing? 'A. Yes, si^r;~ tbis letter is signed by him. Appointments and Removals. Mr. BpJTLER— I now offer in evidence a list pre- pared by the Secretary of State, and sent to the mana- ^rs, of all the appointments- and removals of officers, ti8 they appear in the State Department, from tbe, be ginning ofthe government. Mr. STANBERY-Of all officers? Mr. BUTLER— No; of all beads of departmerita. _ It is accompanied with a letter simply describing the list, and which I will read. The letter is as follows:- "Hon. Johu A. Bingham, Chairman, &c.— Sir:— In reply to the note addrc?Bi'd to me,on tbe 23d inst., on the, part of the House of Kepieaentatives, in the.TJiiatter pf the ira peachraent of the PreBident, I have the honor fo submit herewith two scbeduleB, A and B. Schedule A presents a atatement of all reraovals of heads of departraents made bv the President of the United States during this session of the Senate, so far as tbe sarae can be ai^cer tained from the records of the departraent. Schedule B contains a list of all appointraents of beads of departments at any time raade by the President with the adyice and consent of the Senate, and while the Senate was in'seBBion,'&o far as the same appear on the records of the State Depart raent. Ihave the honor to be, i&ic.. , "WIIJLIAM H. SEWA-Rp." Mr. iBUTLER, tben put. .in .evidence Schedule As being the list of removals of heads of departmenii,u made by the Freeident at any time during the sessityi ofthe St;uate,'the only one being that of Timothafi^ Pickering, Secretary of ^tate, removed May iS,' 1800. ' Mr. BUTLER alao pnt in evidence schedule B, being a list of appointments of Aef^f^s of departments mtide by; the President at, any time during the sessioa ' of the Senate. The list contains thirty appointments, extending from 1794 down. to 1S66,, and are principally ' che appointments of chief clerks to actjemporarily.aa heads of departments. Mr. BUTLER to the witneaa— There are in this lisi^ thirty acting appoiutraeuts like those of Mr. Hunter,. Mr. Appleton and Mr. Frnderick W. Seward. I do not aak the authority under which they were made, but I ask the circumstances under which they were, and what ,was the necessity for making them, whether it was the, absence of the Secretary or otherwise? A. The absence of the Secretauy. ¦ Q. Has there been in the thirty-four years that you have been iu the depurtment ,any appointment of an Acting Secretary except on account of the temporary absence of the Seci;etary ? A. L do not recollect any ftt this time. Q, By whom were these acting appointments made? A. Thoy were miide by the President, , or by his order. Q, Did the letters of. authority proceed in most of these cases from tbe Fresiduul, or &om the heads of departments? IMPEACHMEIST OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 97 l^eKal Sparring. Mr. EVARTS objected, and stated that the pnpera themselvers were the best evidence, and must be pro duced. " Mr. BUTLER said that he was merely asking from whence the papers were issued ; whether they came directly from the head of 'a department to the chief clerk, or came from the President to him. Mr. EVARTS— That is the very objection we make; the letters of the authority are themselves the best evidence. Mr. BUTLER— Suppose thero were no letters of authority. Mr. EVARTS^Then yon would have to prove the fact by other evidence^ Mr. BUTLER— I am asking whence the authority proceeded, because I cannot know now co whom Co send to produce them. The Chief Justice (to the witness)— Is the anthority in writing? Witness— Itis always in writing. Mr. BUTLERr— I put this qnestion to the witness:— From whom did those lettera of which you apeak come? 1. -..'-ij ¦• 1 ¦! ^. Mr. EVARTS ob:[ected. The Chief Justice direetod' the question to be reduced to writine. Mr. BUTLEK tben modified it so as to read :— State whether any ofthe lettersof authority which you have mentioned came frora the Secretary of Scate,'or from What other officer? Mr. BUTLER said- My object in putting tbe ques tion Is, that if he says that they all came from the Pre sident, that will end the Inquiry: uud if he says that tbey all came from the. Secretary of State, theni want to send for ttiem. Mr. EVARTS— We object to proof of authority pther, thau by che production of the writing, which, as the witness has stated, exists In all cases. Mr. BUTLER— I am not now*proving the authority. I am endeavoring to "find out frum vvhat eonree these letters came, aud am followiug the usual courae of ex amination. Mr, CUETIS (to Mr. Butler)— Do you mean to in quire who signed the lecters of authority? ¦ Mr. BUTLlER— I mean co inquire precisely vvhether the letters came from the Secretary of Stace or from the President. Mr. CURTIS— Do you mean by that who signed tbe letter ; or do you mean from whose manbal pos^u-^sion it came? Mr. BUTLER— I mean wbo signed the letter? Mr. CURTIS— Thaf we object to. Mr. BUTLEE— I do not do it for the purpose of prov ing the contents of the letter, hnt-for the purpose of its Identification. ¦ Mr. E VARl'S— We say that the paper itself will show who. signed it. Mr. BUTLER— The difficulty with me is that unless I take an hour in my argument, these gentlemen are determined that I shall never nave the reply on .my proposition. My proposition is not to prove the anthority, nor to prove the signature, but it la to prove the identity of the paper. It is not to prove thatit was a letter of authority* because Mr. Seward signed ir, but It is to prove whether 1 am to look for my evi dence in a given direction pr in another direction. The Chifef Justice decided that the, question iu the form in which it was put waa not' objectionable, and that the question whether, these documents were Signed by the President would" be also competent. Mr. BUTLER— Stace whether anyof the lettere or authority which you have mentioned, came from tbe Secretary of State, or from what other officer? Mr. CURTIS— I understand that the witness is not to answer by wh6m they were sent. . Mr. BUTLER (l>rtly)— I beUeve I have this wit ness. , The Chief Justice-The Chief Jnstice will instract the witneas not to answei; at present by whom tbey were signed. Witness— They came frora the President. Mr. BUTLER— All of them? A. Such is, the usual rule; I know of no exception; I kuow of uo letter of authority to a chief clerk to act as Secretary of State that did not come from tbfl President; I will, on my retnm tp the office, examine and see if there is auy Mr. STANBERY— I see hy tbis list only one in stance of Che removal by the President, of tbe head of a department, and tbat was during the fession of the Senate, and that was an early one. May 13, ISQOi Tou know nothing; of the circumstances of that re moval? A. Notat all: I do not know whether that officer had- refused' tb resign when requ^tfed. Q. In yonr knowledge, ain,ce you naveUeen in-the departmebt, do yod'know of any instance' in which the head' of a department, when requested by the President to resign, has refuaed to resign? , Mr. BUTLER (to tbe witness)— Stop a moment; I object. The objection was either austained or the question withdrawn. Mr. STANBERT— Have ydu ever examined the Ve- covds to ascertain under what circumstances it was that President Adams removed Mr. Pitkering from the bead of the State Department in 1800, wheu the Seuate was in seBSiou? A. I have not. Mr. BUTLER— t)o you know that he was removed when the Senata was' in session of your own know ledge? A. I do not. Mr. BUTLER— I now offer, sir, frpm the ninth vo lume of the works of John Adams, "The Little & Brown edition by ' his grandson, Charles Francia Adams," what purports to be official lecters from Timo thy Pickering, Secretary of State, to J'ohn Adam^, aud from Mr: Adams to hini. Any objection? (To Mr. Stanbery.) Mr. STANBERY— Not llie least. Mr. BUTLER— The flrst one is dated the 10th of Msy, 1808,, pages 53, 54 and 55. I offer, tbem as the best evidence of the offlcial letters of tbat dete. I have-not been able to find kny record of them thus iar. Any obiection, gentlemen ? Mr. STANBERY— Not at all, sir. Timotby Fickerins's Removal. Mr. BUl^LER read ti letter from President ,Adam« to I'imothy Pickering. Secretary of Stffte, dated 10th ¦ May, 1800, which he said was Saturdiay, ahnonncing thjit the Administration deemed a change in the office of secretary of State necessary, and stating that the announcement was made in order to give Mr. Picker ing an opportunity to resign. He next read the reply of Mr. Pickering, dated. "Department of State, May 1*2, 1800," stating thathe had contemplated a continu ance in office until the 4th of March following aiter the election of MV. Jefferson, which was considered certain, and refusing, frtim, varions personal consider ationa, to resign, jae then read the letter of Presi dent Adaras of the sarae date, aud removing Mr. Pickering 'from office. - > Mr. BUTLER^Now, will the Senate have the,good- ness to send for the executive journal of May 13, 1800, to be brought here? I propoae to show that at the same hoar, on the same .day, Mr. Adams, the Presi dent, aent the nomination co the Senate. Mr. STANBERY— Do I nnderstand the honorable member to say atthe. same bour? Do you expect to prove it? — to Mr. Butler. ,¦>'¦ .,'. ^' ¦ Mr. BUTLER— When I come to Jook at the corres pondence I think I am wrong. I Chink the action of the. Senate was a little precarious. (Langhter.) Mr. STANBERY— You do? Mr. BUTLER— Yee. sir. On motion of Mr. SHERMAN it waa ordered tbat the Journal la queation be furnished. I*Ir. Creeisy Called. Mr, C. Eaton Creecy recalled and examined by Mr, BUTLER.- You have beeu sworn, I. believe? A. Yes, sir. (Paner shown to wicueas.) Q. You told ns that you were appointed Clerk in the Treasury. 'Are you familiar with the handwritiug of Andrew Johnson? A. Iam; that is bis handwrit ing; I procured this letter from the archives of the Treasury to-day. * The Removal of Mr» Stanton. Mr. BUTLER— Just step down a moment. Mr. President and Senatora :— It willbe remembered that the anawer ofthe President to the first article says in wqj'ds: — ^"And this has ever since remained, and waa the opinion of thia respondent at the time when be was forced as aforesaid to consider and decide what act or acts shonld and might lawfully be done by this respondent aa President of the United States to cause the said Stantou to surrender the eaid offlce." This respondent was also aware that this act fthe Tenure of Office act) was understood ahd inteuded to be an expression of the opinion of the Cengreaa by which thac act was passed ; that the power to remove cixe- cntive officers for cause rtiVght bylaw be 'taken from the President, and vested in him and dhe Senate jointly. " - , 98 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. Mr. Bntler read farther from the articies the Pre sident's claim tbat he l^ad remored Stauton uuder the Gonstitatiou. He tben read the 2d eeptiqn of the Tennre of Office act empowering: the Preaidenti daring, a recess of the Senate, to susgehd civil officers, except United States Judges, for incajiacity, miscohdnct, See., anthorizin^ him to designate aiemporary successor to hold nutU acted upon by the. ^epate, and, jjeauiring him to re port such action within twenty days from the next meeting ofthe Senate, with, the reasons therefor, &c. He also read the eighth section, requiring the President to notify the Secretary of the Treasury of such tem porary appbinthientB made without the consent of the Senate. He doqCbued :— It will be seen that the Presi- ^dent of the tTniteid Statee says, in bis answer, that he suspended Mr. Stanton under the Constitution, eus- peilded'him indefinitely, and at bis pleosure. We propose now, unless it is objected to, to show that is false under his own "hand. I offer his Jetter to that,effect, which, if there is no ol)jection, I will read. Mr. S.'TANBEKT, after examining , the letter— We Be6 no i'ncousistency inthat nor falsehood. Mr. BUTLER— Tbit is not ihe question I put to you; I asked yon if yon^ad any objection, Mr. STANBEKY— I hive uo objection.' Mr. BUTLEE— The falsehood ia «ot jn the letter^ it iB in the answer. , He then read the letter, dated Washington, D. C, Aug. 14, 1867, as follows:— '[ - Sir:— In compliance with the reguiremente .of tbe eighth eection of the act of GongresB ot "March 2, 1867, enti tled an act to regulate the tenure of cevtain civil offices, you are hereby notified that, on the 12th inet., the Hon. .Ejdwin M. Stanton wau suspended from bis ollice as Secre tary of War. General U.S. Grant is autboruied and erii- powercd to act as Secretary of War ad interim. I am, sir, very reapectfully, yours. Andeew Johnson. To the Hon, Hugh McCuUoch, Secretary ofthe Tr^sury. Mr. BUTLEE — 1 wish to call attention to this a^^ain, because it may have escaped the attentioii of Sena tors. Mr. CUETIS— We object. We wish to know what ^1 this discussion means. What qnestion is now i)e- fore the Senate; How ills that this statement is made? Mr. BUTLER— I am endeavoring to show that wheu the President said that he did not suspend Mr. Stanton uuder the -tenure uf Office act, and thathe had come to tbe conclusion tbat he had .the-rigbt to suspend before August 12, lS6r, without 'leave of the Tenure of OiHee act, he sefit a letter, saying that be did under that act, to the Secretary of the Treasury, under the eighth section of the act- to which be refers. He. expressly says in that letter that: he did suspend him uuder tbis act. Mr; CUETIS— We do not object to the honorable manager offering his evidence. We do object to his argument, . AncIeUt Precedent. Mr, BUTLER-J am arguing nothing, sit, I read the law. The Journnl asked for arrived at this point, and was delivered to Mr. Butler. He read the proceedings of Monday, May 12, 1800, and the subsequent action of the Senate on the following day, as follows:- "Ou Tuesday; May l3, 1800, the Seuate proceeded to opnsider the message ^ of the President nf tb^ United Statee gf Che 12th inst., aud the nomination con tained therein of John Marshall, of Virginia, to be Secretary, of. StBjte, whereupon it was "Resolved, That tbey do advise and consent to th6 appointment laccording to the nomination. Mr. STANBEBZ-'^Flease to read when it appeared there at what hour tbis was done. Mr. BUTLEE— I will nqt underljake to state the hour, sir. '1 'state directly tti the 'Setfat^ in answer to yon thatthe nomination: went to the Senate, as it will appear from an esaminatiou of the whole case, prior to the letters givjing'to Mtv Pickeringr- Mr. srA;NBEKY— Will the bonurable manager al low me to add thathe said he expected co prove It. Mr. BUTLEE— I.e£pected it would appear from the whole case. He sent it first, 1 am quite sure ; now, then, as it was the duty of Mr. Adams to send it first to the Senate, I presame^ he did bis duty and sent it to the Seuate first before he sent it tu Mr. Pickering. (Laughter.) I want to say for them that, being all on , the same day, it must be taken to be done at tSe same time in law ; but another, piece of evidence is that he asked Mr, Pickering to send in his resignation, be cause it was necessary to send the; BUfpeusion lo lh« Senate as soon as they sat, which he did. Mr. STANBEET requested a certifled copy of the Executive docament in questien* ' C. £aton Creecy, Recalled* Mr. BUTLEE— Q. Upon receipt of that notiflcatinn bv the President of the United States that he had'sus- pended Mr. Stanton according to the proviaions of the Civil Tenure act, what was done? A. A eopfr, at the Executive com mnnication was sent to the First Comptroller, tbe First Auditor, Second Auditor aud Third Auditor. Q. Have you the letters of franamissal there? A. Witness produces and reads one of the letters promul gating the information by the Secretary of the Trea sury to the Eirst Comptroller; be stated thatnthe others were similar. C. Are those oflicers theiiroper aceonnting andidis- bnasing officers of the department? A. They are for the War Department. Q. Then I understand yon all the disbursing oiBoers and accounting offlcerS'Of the Tffia«rai*y for the. Wat Department were notifled in pursuaaeeof that act? Objection by Mr. CUKTIS. . '. Mr. BUTLEE— Q. Were thereupon notifled? A. Yes, ' sir., ¦ ' : Q. Were you theie to know of this transmission? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you prepare the papers? A. Yes, eir, but not in pursuance of any other act of Cougress except ' the Cfyil Tenure. RecejBS. On motion bf Mr. CONNESS the Senate took ¦ re cess of fifteen minutes from half-past two. An Apjieal for Time. After the recess Mr. CONNESS suggested an ad journment, whereupon Mr. CURTIS said :— Mr. Chief Justice, it is suggested to me by my colleagues that 1 should make kno.wn at this tihie to the Senate that it is our intention, ^ the testitapny on tfae part of the prosecution shOBld,bo closed to-day, as we supposeit will, to ask theft^fta- tors to grant to the President's cdunsel three days iu which to prepare and arrange their proofe. aud enable themselves to proceed vfith the defense. We fiud our selves in a condition in which it is absolutely necea- sary to make this request, and 1 hope the Senators will agree to it. In response to an intimation froni the Chief Justice that the request be postponed until the Senate was fuller, Mr. CUETIS said he bad merely suggested it lest it should not be in order at another time. Argfumont of IMr. Boutwell. Mr. BOUTWELL called the attention of counseito the statutes as explainining the nature of the pro ceedings in the case of the appoihtment of Mr. Pick ering. He said the only appointment of the bcijid of a department which appeared oh th^ record tohave been made during a session of the Senate, was lu 1st Statutes of September, 1T89, iu which it is provided that there shall be a Postmaster-Ueqeral with powprs and compensation to the assistant clerks and deuh'ties whom he may appoint, and the regulations of the Post Offlce shall be the same as tbey were under the resolution and ordinances df the last Congress. It was provided in tbe second section that this act shall continue in force until the end of the next session>of Congress, and no longer, showing that it was merely tbe continuance of the_ Poat 'Office Department tliat war contemplated. On the 4th of -\ngnst, 1790, Congress passed a sup plementary act, in which it was proVidftcI, that the act of last session, etitltlfed "An act for the Establishment of ii Post Offlce Depirtiflent," be ar^d the same is here by coutii^ued in force until the endof the next ses sion 6f Cbhgi:e^s, which was a continuance of the Cdu- tinental system of DOst office management. On the Sth day bf March, lf91, Congiess paasbd anotber act, continttiBethe a!6t forthe temporary establishnient of a post office departmeut in full force and effect until the end of the next session of Congress and nolppger. On the'aoth of February, IT92, Congress passed an aot making varioua arrangements In regard to the ad ministration of the Post Offlie Department and'to establish certain postal roiltes; that act provided, that the act Of ^the preceding session be ^oucini^ed in fall force for two years and no longer. This act did npt provide for the establishment of a post office depart ment as a branch ofthe giivernmpnt, so that the act of tbe previous session Waa 'continued by it ntitil,1794. Ou May 8, 1794, Congress passed an iict covering the IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 99 whole gronnd of the post offlce aystem, providing for n General Post Office, and meet the wants of the connsel for tbe respondent. . Mr. WILSON called attention to several entries in the Journal of 1800, showing that the Senate met be fore noqn. Mr. BINGHAM offered in evidence the.. Execntive messages to the Senate, of December 16 and December 19, 1867, and January lg, 1868, in which the President gives hia reasons for the suspension from office of several officers. Also, a communication from the Secretary of State accompanying one of the messages, lu which he reports the action under the Tenure of ^)11&C6 laws 21r. BUTLEK tben Informed the Senate that tbe case, on the part of the Houee of Representatives, was snbstantially closed, altboagh tbey might call a few more witnesses, \^bose testimony would be only cn- mulative. The Qnestion of Time. Mr. CURTIS, on behalf of the President's connsel, tben made a motiou that when the court adjourned it should be to Thursday next, in oider to afford them thr^e working days in which to prepare their testi mony, Mr, CONNESS (Cal.) moved that the court adjourn nntil Wednesday next. Senator JOHNSON— If it Is in order, I move to amend the motion made by tbe honorable Senator from California, by inserting Thursday- instead of Wednesday. The qnestion was put on tbe amendment of ^r. Jebneon, and agreed to, with only one dissenting voice. The Chief Jast!(ii stated tbe question to be on the motion as amended. Senator CAMERON— Mr. President^ The Chief Jnstice-^No debate is in order. Senator CONKLlNG-^t wish to inquire whether the managers want to submit some remarks on the mo tion for delay. The Chief Jnstice—The question is on the motion to adjourn. Mr. CONKLING— My purpose was to ascertain whether they desire to make some remarks or not, Mr. BUTLER— We want to have it understood^ In reply to an inquiry' from Senator Anthony, the Ghief Justice restated the question. Mr, CONNESS said the motion to amend bad been Bubmitted before be was aware of it. He had desired to accept it. Mr. CAMERON— I was going to aek the honorable managers whether they will not he prepared to go. on with this case on Monday. I can see no reason why the otber side will not be as well prepared. Mr. BUTLER— We are ready. Senators CAMERON and SUMNER simultaneonsly — Mt, President — Ths Chief Justice-ftNo debate is In order. Seuator CAMERON— I am not going to debate the tbe questiouriyoor Honor, I bavejnst arisen to ask tbe question, wtiether the managers will be ready to go on with this case on Monday? SeuatorSUMNER— I wish toasfc a question alao, I want to kuow if the honorable managers have any Viewsto present to the Senate, sitting now on the trial of this Impeachment, to aid the Septate in deter mining this question of time? On that I wish to know the views of the'b'onorable nianagers. The Chief Justice— Tbe Cbief Justice is of opinion that pending the motion of adjoarnment no debate is In order. The motion as amended was then agreed to by the following vote: — Yeas.— Meears, Antbonv, Bayard, Buckalew, Cattell, Conness, Corbett, Criigin, Davlst Dixon, Edmunds, Perry, Fowler, frelinghuyEL'n, Grimes, Henderson, Heudrieks, ' Howard, Howe, Jobnaon, McCreery, Morrill (Me.)- Mor rill (Vt). Norton. Nye, Patterson (N. H.), Pattereon (Tenn.), Ramsey, Koae, Snulsbury, Sherman, Sprague. TitJton, Trumbull, Yan Winkle, Vickere, WiUey, and Williftms-37. NAYS.~MeBBrB. Cameron, Chandler, Gole, Conkling, Drake, Morgan, Pomcruy, jStotvait, Sumner, and Thayer -10. The Chair was vacated, and wns imrhedlately re sumed by the Presideul^ro tem., whereupon, withpiit transacting any lef^islstive busines?. On motion of Mi*. GRIMES, tbe ijenate adjourned. PROCEEDINGS OF THURSDAY, APRIL 9. The Opening. The doora were opened to the crowd at eleven o'clflck thismornine, and the galleries were considera bly filled by an audience ofthe usual well-dressed order at the opening of the Senate, at twelve o'clocl:. Prayer. After prjiyer, by a stranger, in which all the depart ments of the government were remembered, the Pre sident j>ro tem. relinquished the chair for the Chief Jnsticr, and the court was opened by the usual pro clamation. Entering of the mnnaffers* At ten minutRB past twelve the man.iger^ were an nounced, and all appeared but Mr.^ Stevens. The connsel tor the President were all promptly present. Tbe memhers of the House were announced at quarter past twelve, and a rather larger proportion than on recent occasions put in their appearance. The Chief Justice asked— Have the managers on tha part ot the House.. of Bepreientativefi any further evi dence to bring in 7 Mr. BtlTLBK— We have. On motion of Senator JOHNSON, the ftarther read ing of the journal was dispensed with when but littlp progress had been made* Examination of W. H. Wood. Mr. BUTLEH, on tbe part of tbe mausgors, then called ii W. H. Wood, of Alabahia, who was sworn. Q. 'Where is your place of residence ? A. Tusca loosa, Alabama ; I served in the Union army during the war; from Julr, 1861, to July, 1865; some time in September, 1866, I called npon Prasident Johnson, and presented him testimonials for employment in the ' government service; itwas onthe 2l8t day of Sep. tember, 1866. ; I flx the time partly from memory, and partly from the journal of the Ebbitt House. Q. How long before tbat had he returned from Chi cago from his trip to the tomb of DoHglas f A. My recolleption is tbat be rttarned oil tbe 15th or 16t.h; I awaited bis return; I presented my testomonials to him, when he examined part of them. Q, What tben took place between yon? Mr. STANBERY— What do yon propose to prove? Has it anything to do with this case? Mr. BUTLEK-Yej, sir. Mr. 8TANBEBT— What articlrs? Mr. BUTLEE— As to the intent ef the President : in several ofthe articles. Mr. STANBEET— What to do? Mr. BUTLER— To oppose Congresa. Q. What did he say? A. He said my claims for government employraent were good, or worthy of attention; he inquired about mv political priuciples; ItpldhimI wasn't a political man ; I told him I was ¦ a Union ni^n, a loyal mnd, and in favor of tbe ad- ministratiqn ; J hud confldence In Congress au,d in the Chief Executive; he asked me if I knew of any differences between himself and Congress ; I told him Idi.d; I knew of some differeucrs on minor points; then be said,, '*They are uot minor points; tbe influ ence of patronage" (I don't know which) "shall be in my favor; that's the meaning. Q. Wpre tha|e the words? A. I will not swear that Ihey were the words. Q. What did you say to that? A. I remarked that u.ader those conditions 1 cnuld uot accept an appoint ment of auy kind if my Influence was to be used for him in contradistinction to Congress, and retired. Cross-examined by Mr. Stanbery— Q. Do yon know a eeutlepiaii in thia city by the name of Eoppel? A, I do. , Q. Have yon talked with him aince yon have been in the city' A, I have; I called on him when I flrst came to the city: I did not tell him yesterday morning that all you eould aay waa more in hia farurihan against him; Idid not tell Mr. Koppel that when I waa brought up to be examined, sincej arrived in this city, there was au atcemptmade tomake me say things which I would pot say; I might, in explana tion of that qnestion, aay that there waa a misunder standing between tht say so. Tha gentle man from Boston misunderstood mc. The President Slid nothing of the kind to me, and I explained that tftjylr. Kopiel. Q. Did you explain whfn the misnnderstanding . iwose? ,A. I told him it muSt have occnrred in acou- veri^atiou between a gentleman from Boston and my- B«3f. Q. In regard to what? A. In regard to twenty-flve pci" cent. Q. Did you explain to Mr, Koppel where the idea rfrrno from that you were to give twenty-flve per cent.? A. I did. sir. Mr. EVARTS— We object. The witneas haa told ua (Tlstuictly that nothing else occurred between the Preaident aud himself. It is certainly quite nnijnpor- i ther havo bonclUded' 'their evidence. Gentlemen, counsel f.rthe President, you will proceed with your defe*«ie. Mr. CURTIS rose to open the ease on the pan ofthe Fih.ident, Mr, Curtis* Svoech. r ., Mr. Chief .Tustico .ind Senatora :— I am he^'e to speiife to 'tho iSoufttc of the United Statee, sitting in its judioialleapa- city as a VJfiiU't of Judicial Impoachmont, presidizd over by the Chief Jlniitioe ofthe United States, for the trial,.#lhe Prcpidont of tho United States. (Hero ono or two-aenlonoee wore rutirf ly inaudtblo.) InnaiiiHch aa tho Conatitution requires that there ShivH be a tri;*l. i^iid iaaainiich as in that trial the oath whjdll enchonopr you hna taken iato administer impartliillnV' tico accor'Hii.!; to tli6 Conatitution nnd lawa. tne only tip. peal thfit.l cn inako hero in behalf of the Prpcidoni ia-aa appeal to till' 'tnu.-icienco and to the reason of e.ich j)11^ who Bite in flii > nuiirt. bn thela# and tlie facta in "thb cart, upnuit-^ judi'.-i:\l riicrita onthe duties inctmlbent on thM hif;h olllco. Uv virtue of .hia* office, ^nd on h!a houeat oa. doitvor to di:'chargo' thmo ditt!o8,thtt Preaid'inf rcati hie cfiM.; and I pray each of you, to listen wUh that pationco TvhKh bdonga to ft jiulito, for his own wAe, bnt which I 6iWnot ospcct bv n-nv eff-orti 'of mine to olieiS, while I open toyoiwiiat thi^t di.-fenee i». The honorame inanagore, 'ShrOu^h th(fll)«saivciato vrhr^ haff .addiBeased .you,.havo in. formed yon tlmt tliia ia not a coart— that whatever rfiay he tho ohar.octer of this bodr. ifi ia bound by no law. On that BH Inject 1 shall Iiiivd somethin!; hereafter to say. 1 no hoiionib'o nianiisrera did not toll you, iusnch tonilflt at hinat. thnt thoro *ro no artlelos before vou, bccaiiao a statement to that ctt'out would be in substance to ear thut IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON, 101 t there aj'e no honorable manaRors before you, inasrauch as .the only power by which the' honorable managera are .clothed by tho House of RepreapntativeB is an jviithbi-ity to present here at your bar certain articles, and within thi limits of thora to conduct this pro-ccvitlon ; th'^yt-forf , I Bhall make no apolog V for aftkinc your cU-co attention to these articles, in manner and form ah thev appenr pre sented, to jiscertain, in the first plnce, what the subrttantial allcRatious in each of thora ftre; what Is fo be tho legal proof and effect of thoie allcKntionp, and wbat proof is ne'- cessary to be adduced in order to svistain them. Here ie a section, a part of which applies to all civil offi- ;cera as well as to thoae being In office aa to tho.»o who should thereafter be appointed, and the body of this eec- *ion contains a declaration that every such officer is, that h. if he ie now in office and shall, that ifl,if he nhall be here- alter appointed to office, entitled to Hold ^mtil another is appointed and qualified in his p1ac«; that Ip in the body of .aection, but out of that body of section it ia explicitly de clared tliat thero ie to be pxc^pted a particular cHss of ¦officers as to whom something is otherwise provided, that a different rule ia tobe made for them. Now, the Senato ^¦111 perceive that in the body of the section, every officer, .«^ well as thopc holdinp office as those hereafter to be ap- "pointed included, the languago is, eviTy poraon holding civil office, to which he has boon appointed bv and with tho advice and consent tf thf Senate^ and every pernon rwho shall bo hereafter appoiuted is and shall be entitled to hold, &c. , It aflfectf the President— It sweeps over all who are in 'Office. It includes th^m all by its terms, aa well as thoae .irho may here.after'be appointed; but when von eorae to proviao, the first noticeable thing ia that that language is not used. Itia not that everv Secretaryof State, of the Treaaury, of War, ia to hold bis offiee. It is a rule for tho future only, and tnb queation whether any particular Sec retary cornea within that rule, is a question whether he cornea within the p'^neral description contained ill the nro- viso. There is nnthin? to bring him within the proviao. There ia no cypress dfclaration. as in the bodv of the aec- 'tion, that he is and hereafter shall be entitled to hold hia ofhce, &c. ; nothing to bring him within the body of the. WnviBO, e3:copt tho description, and the question is whether the proviso contains, applies to and includtJs thia , case. Now let ub sec if it does. 'J'he Secretarv of State, tlie Secretary Of the Treasury, rtc, ehnll hold thf-ir offices respectively for and durine the Tenn of the I'rpRident by whom they may have been uppoiiitfd, nnd nnr month thereafter. The first inquiry which arifefl on this langnago is thi«, a» to what in meant fty "for and during tho terra of the President by whora tSpy may have been apoointod.'* Mr. Stanton appears, br the conBtructinn which has been put- on the cape by ':tbe honorable manaRerp, to have beeti appoiuted during the first term of President Lincoln, in January, 1862. pf* thf^^nrt of the language, ''during 'the term of the i'reHidcnt by whom th6y may have bfen anpointed." applicable to Mr. Stanton's cftse. That depend? whether , apeJ'Fon oxpoutidirtg that law judicially has any rightto add to it any other toriu for whiph he may afterwards be ¦.iected. ¦ I shall begin with the first article, not merely becanse the House of Rcpreseniatlves, in arrangiuff these arti cles, has placed it first in order, but becauae the i. I bject matter in, that article is of sucha character that tt forma the foundation of the eight first articles iu the ' ierics, and enters raaterially into the body of the remain ing eleven. What, then, ia the aubstance of this ¦tirstarticIflP, What aro what tho lawyers call tho gravar tima conrained in it? There is a good deal of verbiage. ¦I do liot mean unnecepsary verbiage in the deccrip- ¦tion of the substantial thing set down in that article. Stripped of that, it amount)* to exactly these things :— First. that the order set out inthe article for tho removal of Kr. Stanton, if executed, would have boen a violation of "the Tenure of Office act. Second. That it waa a violation Cf the Tenure of Office act.- Third, That it waa an inten tional violation ofthe Tenure of Office act. Ponrth, That ft waf« a violation ofthe Constitution of the United States; .and fifth, That it waa bythe President intended to be ao; 'or to draw all these into one sentence, which I hope may he intelligible nndclearenough,^ suppose the substance of this tirst article ia that tho order for the removal of Mr. Stanton wna. and waa intended to be, a violation of the j'Eoiiure of Office act; and was, and was intended to be, a »iol ation of the Constitntion of the United States. These are tho allegations which it is necesiBnrv' for the 'hrthorable managersto raake out in order to support that article. Now, there is a quostiori involved here which en- ¦?^r" deeply, as I have already intipiatcd, into the firnt nj|?ht ¦•¦tiHc!' of this series, and raateriallv touches two others, aftd ro ^-hat question I doMra.in the first instance, to invite the attention of the court. That question i% whether Mr. 'Stanton's case comes under thn Tenure nf Offic* act? If it dnea not; if the true comtniction and cIToot of the Tenure of Office act, when applied to tho facts in this caws, include ¦ft. then it will be found bv honorable Senators, when they «»tno to examine this and tho other artirlcs, tljat a deep, Jndispntable and matorial wound haa attempted to be in- ' «i<*ted on the ConBtitution. [Tho Koporter will not vOiichftirthe acctiracy of this Bentenco, on account of tho impoasibility of hearing.] Imuftapk vour attention, therefore, to tho question of the consideration and application of the fir-at-section of the Teeareof Office act. It iv M Senators know, but dry woilc, but itreqiiiiei e\i*'« andcaroftuatteiition,and uo Aonbtwill receive it. Allow me, in the firrit place, to ¦ 'Thaitevery peraon huUing any wvil oifiee, to which ho haa been appointedby and with the, advice and consent of the Senate, and oveiy person who ahall hereafter be ap pointed to any sueh officd', and shall become dulv qualified to act therein, is and ahallbe eutitled to hold such office until a auccGBsor shall have been in liko manner appointed and dilly qualified, except aa herein otherwiae provided." Theii comes what is otherwise provided: — ^•Provided, That tho Secretaries of State, of the Trea sury, of War, of the Navy and of the Interior, the Poirt^ maBtel"-Gepcral and the Attorney- General, ahall hold their ©ffices respeotively for and during the term of tho President by whom they may have been appointed, and ono month thereafter, aubject to removal by and with tho advice andconpcnt ofthe Senate." By what authority short of the legialative power can these worda be added to the statute, during the term of tho I'repident? Doea it mean any other term or terma for which the President may be re-elected? I respectfully submit thatnosuch judicial interpretation can be put upon the text. At the timo when this order was iaaued for tho removal of Mr. Stanton, waa he holding during the terra ofthe President by whora he waa appointed? The honors able managera eavy^es; because, as they say, Mr. John aon ia merely seo-ing out the reatd'io of Mr. Lincoln's term. But is that so under the proviaions of tho Oondtito- tion ofthe United States? I pray you to aliow me to read one or two sentences that are exactly applicable to this question. - The first is the first section of the aecond article of tho Constitution, which saya :— *'The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Ha shall hold his office during a term of four lyears, and, toge ther with the Vice Preeident, choaen fbr the aame period, be elected as follows." There ia a declaration tnat tho Preaident and tho Vice Preaident ia each respectively to hold hie office for the term of four yeara. ^ut that doea not stand alone. Hero ia a qualification of that' st-ato- ment:— "In case of removal of tho President from office, or of his death, resignation or inability to discharge the duties of the said ollice, the aame shall devolve on tha A''ice President." So that, although the President, liko the Vice President, is elected for the term of four yearav and eaoh elected for the aame term, the Preaidentis not to hold hia office abaolatcly during four years. The limit of four years ia not an absolute lirait. Thero is a conditional limit aa lawyers term it, imposed, and when, according to the second paasage which I havo read, the firat dies or i8 removed, then hia term of four yeara for which ho was elected and during which ho was to hold provided he ahould fO long live, terminatea, and theoffico devdlves on the Vice President. For what period of time? For the remainder of the tofm for which the Vice Presi^ dent waa elected. There ia no more propriety under this provision of the Constitution of the Lnited States in calling the time during which Mr. Johnaon holds the offico ot President, as it was devolved on him as part of Mr* Lincoln's term, than would be propriety in saying that one sovereign whoaucceeds to another sovereign by death, holds a part of his predeecasor'a term. Tho term aeeiened by the Conatitution was a conditional assignments It was to last four yeara, if not aooner ended; hut if sooner ended by death, then the office waa to devolve on tho Vice Preaident, and the term ot the Vice President to hold the office then began, I submit, then, that on this language it ia equally appa rent that M!r. Stanton's case cannot be considered aa with in this aet. This law, however, as Senatora very well know, had a purpose. Thore was a practical object in view, and however clear it may seera thfi language of the law, when applied to Mr. Stanton, will exclude that case. However clear that may seera onthem^re words ofthe law, if thepurpoee can be discerned, and that pu^ pose plainly required a different interpretation, that dif ferent interpretation ehould be f^iven; but, onthe other hand, if the purpose that was in view is one which re quires thia interpretation for which I have been drawing vour attention, then it greatly strengthens the argument: but ahowa that not only the language of the act itself, but the prartieal object which the ie^islation had in view lu using that language, 'requires thiB mterpretation. Now there ean beno dispute concerning what thatpur- pose was, as I suppose. Here is a peculiar class of officerB singled from all others and brought within this purpose. Why is it? It is because the Conatitution haa provided ttmt thoae principal otTlcera in the several executive d&-. partment* mav be called upon by tho Prcrident for advieo roBpccting the language of the Constitntion, but not re specting their aeverril dutiea. Aa Tread the Constitution the Prcfident may call «pon tho Secretary of War for advice concerning questions arising lu the Department of War; that he may call upon hira for advfce coii- cerning queations which aro a part of the duty of tho President, and which touch hia diitiea as well aa questiona that belong to the Department of War. Allow mo to aos if that is not a true interpretation. The language of the 'Constitution ia that tho President may requi*c the opinion in writing of the principal officer of oaoh of the Executive Departmenta on any subject re* At all ovents auch was the practical interpretation put npon the Constitntion from the beginjiing, ftBd.evory gen tleman who listena to me, and who is familiar* as all are with the political history of the country,- knowa that from an carly_period of the country, in tho administration of Gonenu Wa-hington. hie secretaries were called npon for t^-ir advice coDccrniag mshttera not withia their i^oapee- 102 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. tive departmentfl, and ao the practice has continued frora that time to this. This is Avhat diatingi'iahcd tbisclas'Bof official-* in one ?)articnlar from anv other ofiicers embraced withiu the >ody of thia law. Bivt there ii another distinction ; the Constitution undoubtedly cnntemplated that there should be execntive departments organix.cd, the heads of which were to a&sist the Preaident in the adminiatration of the lawa, as well aa by tlieir ad \ici\ They were to be the hanoB and the voice of the President, arid accordingly that has been so practicd from the beginning, and is counte nanced directly and explicitly by the legislation of Con grees iu the organization of the departments and in the act which constitutes the Departraent of War. That act provides, as senators *• ill remember, in eo many words, that the Secretary of War is to discharge the dutiea, within a certain general description there given, as ahall be aa- pigned to niui by the' Prepident, and that heie to doit under the President's instructiona and directions. Let rae repeat. The Scci-etary of War and the other Se cretaries, the Postmaster- General and the Attomej'-Gene- ral are deemed to be the assistants of tlie President in the performance of hia great duties', to take care that the lawa are faitjifully executed, and they arr to apeak and to act for hini. Now, do not these auggestions or views show that this elasB of officers was excepted out of the Tenure of Office act? They were to be__the advisers of the Pre/i- dent ; thev were to be the immediate confidential assi.'t- anta of the ^resident, for whom he was to be responsible, and in whom he waa expected to repose the gravest honor, trust and confidence. Therefore it was that thia act has connected the tenure of office of these officers vrith that of the President by whom they were appointed. It saya, in fact, that as to the secretaries who were ap pointed by some particular President :— They ahall conti nue to hold their office during the term of that President ; bnt that as to secretariea 'n'ho aro in offiee, and who are not aj)pointed by any President now in office. Congress haa nothing to aay, and leaves them as they stand. Isubrait, Senators, that thn.t is the natural, and, having regard to the character of the^e oflicers, the necessary interpretation of the Tenure of Office act ;'30 that it was the intentidn of Congress to compel the President to continue in office a Secretary not appointed by himaelf. Fortunately, however, we have not only those meansof Interpreting this law which I -have alluded to, namely, the language of the act and [the evident object and pur poses of the act — but we have deciaivoxividence of what was intended and underf-tood blythe law in each branch of Congress at tha timeit waspasEied. In order to make this more apparent and ita juat weight more evident, allow uie to state what ia very familiar, undoubtedly to Senators, but which Iw-ish to recall to their, minda— the history oi this proviso. The bill, as Senatora wUl recollect, originally excluded those officera altogether. ,Itmade no attempt— indeed, it rejected all attempts— to prescribe the Tenureof Office for them; ao the bill went to the House of Repreaentativea. It waa there amended bv putting the Secretaries on the sarae footing as other civil officers ap pointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, and, thus amended, it came back to this body. This body diaagreed to the amendment. Thereupon a committee of conference was appointed. That committee on the part of the Houae had for its chairman theHon^ Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, and on the part of this body it had the Hon., Mr. Williamsand the Hon. Mr. Sherman. That committee of conference came to an agreement to alter the House bill, by striking those Secretaries out of the body of the bill, aud inserting therein the proviso containing the matter now under consideration. Of course, when this report was made to tho House of Kepresentatives it waa incumbent on the committee appointed by that body to explain what was done, or agreed to be done, ao that the -Houae iteelf ra^ht understand and act intelligently on the matter. Now I wiah to read to the Senate the explana tion given by the Hon. Mr, Schenck, the chairman of the committee on the part of the Houae, when he made the conference report to the Houae, After reading the report, Mr. Schenck said :— I propose to demand the previous queation on agrecipg to the report of the Committee of Conference, but betore doing fio, I will explain to the House the conditions of the bill, and the' decisions ot the Committee of Confereueb upon it. It \yjlLbe recollected that the bill, as it passed the, Sen&te, waa to ^rovi^e that the concurrence of the Senate should be required m k\l removala from office, except In the case of ueads.of departments. The House amended the bill ofthe Senate, ao »s fo extend this reqiiirement to the heads of department' as well as to other officers. The Committee of Conference haa agreed that the Senate shall accent the amendment of the House, but inasmuch as this would compel the President to keep around him heads of departments until thp end 6f his tonn^ and who would hold over to the next term, aeompromiee was made, hy which a further amendment is added to this portion of the bil!. so that the term of office of heads of departraents ahall expire with the term ofthe President who appointed them, aUowing these heads of departments one mouth longer, in which, in case of death or otherwise, other ap pointments can be made. That ia the whole effect of the propoaition reported by the Committee of Conference. It is, in fact, an acceptance by tho Senate of the poaition ofthe House. When, tnen, these queations were put td Mr. Schenck, he went on to say ;— Their terma of oflico, "that Is, the terms of office of the Secrytan-, &c., are limited M thoyare^." so that they expire with the, term of service ofthe President who appoints them, and one monthaftor, In rane of death or accident, until others can be substi tuted for them. Allow me to repeat that sentence. ^'iSiey expire with the term of service of the president who a^i- pointa thera, and one month aftpr, in cafie ot aeatn or £ccidcnt."J Now, in this body* when the_report of , thp Committee of Conference was made, Mr. W lUiamp mado an explanation of it, and that explanation was in ,BnI>. stance the Eame as that made by Mr. Schenck iii the Thereupon a considerable debate sprung up. No debatp had sprung up in the House, for the explanation of Mc. Schenck waa accepted by the Houw as correct, and w^b unquestionably voted by the Houae as giving the, triie tone, meaning and etfect ofthe bill in this bodv. Hovfevef, a considerable debate sprung up. It would take toomnch ofyonr time aud too much of ray atrength to undertake to read thia debate, but I think the whole of it may fairly be summed up in this statement; that it was charged bvoue of the honorable Senators from Wisconsin (Mr. poolittlel. that itwas the intention of those who favored this pi;^ to keep in office Mr. Stanton and some other Secretanei; (that rhat was directly met bythe honorable Senator from Ohio (Mr. Sherman), one ofthe members ef the Coq- ference Committee, by this , atatement, "I do not, under stand the language ofthe Senator from Wisconsin. Hie first attributes a, purpose to the Conference Committee. which I say is not true. I. say that the Senate has ma Icffi^ated with a vdew to any peraon or to any President, aud, therefore, he commences by asserting what la not true. We do not legislate tp keep in the Secretary of W a*, the Secretary of the r^avy, or the Secretary of fatate.V Then a conveuaation arose between the honorable Senator froni Ohio and the hoiiorable Senatorfrom Wisconsin, and the honorable Senator from Ohio continued thus :— "Thatthe Senate haano-auch purpose iaahownbyita vote eince to make this exception. That this proviaiou doea not apply to the present case is shown by the inct that its language ia so framed as not to apply to the jpre,- aent Preaideut. The Senator shows that himaelf, and ar gues truly that it would not prevent the present Presi dent from^removing the Secretary of War. the yecretary of the Navy or the Secretary of State ; and if I anppoe^d that either of theae gentlemen were ao wautins m raan hood, or in honor, aa to hold hia place after tho po litest intimation from the President of the Unit'^d StatOB that hia services were no longer needed, I certainly, jjB Senator,would conaent to hia reiftoval at any tjipe. and»> would we all. I read this. Senators, not ad expressing tno ' opinionof an individual Senator concerning the meaning 01 a law that is under discussion and that id about to pafa into legislation. I read it as the explanation of the report of the Coraraittee of Conference, appointedby thi.^ body .to- see whether it could agree with the House of Repieaentv tiiesinthe terras of tins bill. And now I a.ik theSenate, if. looking at the language of this bill, looking at ita puh. pose, looking at the circura«tancea under wliich it w4b passed, looking at the meaning attached to it by each of the bodiea who asaented to it, it is possible to juld th-'tt Mr. Stanton's caae is withta tho scope of thie '!nuure of Office act? • , I submit that it la uot. I now returu to the allegationi of thia article. The first, as Senatora will remember, 4" that the iasuing of the order which is set out in the article, was a violation ofthe Tenure of Office act. It is perfectly clear that thia ia not true. The Tenure of Office act, iu ita sixth section, enacts "that every remov'al, appointment and emoluraent that may hi^ve been exerciiied contrary to the provisions of this act shall be deemed a high raiademeanor, WelLin the first placcno removal had been proved. They s^t out the order of reraoval ; if Mr. Stanton had obeyed that order it would have been a removal, but inasmucn aa M^. Stanton did not obey it, there was no remoTal,4o that it u quite clear that, looking at. this sixth section of the act, tney have made out uo case of removal withiu thp statute, and, therefore, no case of violation by any rcmovaj, , It must not only- be a removal, but it inust be contrary to the provisions of the Tenure of Office BiCt;and, thero- fore, if vou hold the order to be i^i effect a removal, un lesa Mr. Stanton'a case wae within this act, and unlcsa this act gave Mr. Stariton a tenure of office, his removal would not have been coptrary to the provisinna of the act. But this article, as Sentors will perceive on looking at i^. doea notallege simply that the order for the removal of Mr, Stanton was a vfolati on of tho Tenure of Offico act. i The honorable House of Kepresentatives has not, by il(a articles, attempted, in other words to erect a raistake into a crime. I have been arguing to yon at considerable lengtbi aud, no doubt, tiring your patience, the construction of thia law. I h^ve a clear idea, of ^vhat its construction ought to be. Senators who have listened to me may have a different idea about- it, but I think they will, in all cau- doij adrait that there la a -question of construction here, and a education as tO' what .the 'meaningof this la\y was, a question whether it is applicable to Mr. Stanton's case — A very honeat and solid question which any man may en tertain, and therefore I repeat it ia important to observe that the honorable House of Representatives has uot by this article endeavored to charge the Preaideut with a high misdemeanor, becauae he had failed in construing that law;. The Houso charges him with intentionally miaconatru- ing it so that,iu order to maintain tho subatance of this ar^ tide, without which it was not designed by the House of Eepresentatives to standfiand could not stand, it .is neeoZ sary for the managers to ahpw that thePresident wilfiillff misconstrued this bill; that haviug reaaon to believe, aim actually believing, after tho use of due inquirv, that Mft Stanton's casfi was within the law.'heactedaa iiit was-njt within it-; that is the substance or the charge of this ar- tiele. Well, what is the proof in support ofit? Not a particlQ of evidence. Senators must uudoubtedly be famiU^r with IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 103 the fact that the office of President (rf- tbe United States, as weU as many other executive offices, and, to .some ex tent, Judicial offices, call upon thoHe who hold them for the exercise of judgment and akill in the construction and ap plication of lawa, and on their judgment and skill in, the application ofthe Constitution itself. It is true the ju dicial power of the country, so to speak— technically speak ing— is all veated in the Supreme Court, and in eneh in ferior courts as Congress from time to time haa establiahed or may establiffti ; but then there is a great mass of judicial work to bo performed by executive officera in the discharge of their duties which ia of a judicial character. Takeforinetance, all that ia done in the auditing of ac counts, that IS judicial, whether it be done by an auditor or coiuptroller, or whether it be done by a chancellor, it ia of the same character when done by one as -w hen done bv the other. Thoy must construe and apply the laws; thev must investigate and ascertaiu the facts; they must come to some results founded on tho law and on the facta. Now thia class of dutien the Preaident pf the United States has tb perform. A caae ia broughf before h(m which, iu his judgment, calls for action, /. His first inq.niry must be, what is the law ou the subject? and he encounters among other thinea this Tenure of Office act in the course of that inquiry. His first dutv is to con strue that law to see whether it applies to the case and to use. of c6nrse, in doing so, all those meana and appliances which the Conati u,tion andlawa^of the country have put into hl^ hands to enable hira to come to a correct deciaion. But, after all, he must decide in order either to act of refrain from acting. , That pi'occaa the president was pbliged to go cLrough in this case, and did go ' through, and he came.to the conclu sion that the caae of Mr. Stanton waa not within this law. He came to that concluaion, hot raerely by^examin ation into this law himself, but by reaorting to the advice which the Conatitution and lawa of thecountryenablehim to call ^ for in order to assist him in coming to a correct con- cluMon. Having done BO, will the Senate be prepared to Hay that this muat have beeu a wilful misconptmction of the' law— ao wilful, bo wrong that it can juetlv and pro perly, and for the purpose of this prosecution effectively be termed a high miedemeanor. How doea the law read? What are its purposes and, ob jects? How was it understood here- fit the time it waa PSHBed, and how is it possible, for thia bodv to convict the President bf the United ftates ofa high crime and misde meanor for couatruiog the law aa those who made it con strued it at the time of its' paaaage, I aubmit to the Senate that thus far no great advance has been made towards the conclusion of either of tho allegations in thie article, that this order was a violation of the Tenure of Office act. or that therewas an intent on tho part.of the Preaident thus to violate it ; and yet, although we have not yet gone over all the allegations in thia article, w« have met its head's front, and what reraains will be found to be nothing but incidental and circumstaiitial,. and npt.> the principal aub jecta. . - If Mr. Stanton waa uot within this laiy ; if he heli^, dnf- ingthe pleasure of Preaident Jojinsori,, as he had held durihg the pleasure of Mr. Lincoln, and if he was bound to obey that order, to quit the place, instead, of being sus tained in resisting it, I think that th^ honorable raanagers will find it. extreihely difficult to construct out ofthe broken fragments of this article anything that will amount to a higher misderaeanor. What are thev? They are, in the first place, that the President did vicflate, and intend to violate the Constitution of the United States bv giving this order. How? Thciy say, aa I understand it, that the order of reraoval waa made during the Boasion of the Senate, aind that, for that reason the order wae a .violation of tbe Constitutiou of the United States. Now, if I can make our ideas of it plain, I think there;iB nothing left of that article. Now, in , the firat place, as Seualtora will observe this is the caao of a Secretary of War, holding by tho.terms of hia.coramiasion durinfe tne pleasure of the President, and holding under the actof U89, which created that department, and which, although it does not directly confer on the President tbe power of removing the Seci:efary, does clearly imply Uiat he had that power, by making a provision for what ah/ill happen in case he exercises it. That ia fho case which is under consideration. The question ia thia, whether under tho law of 1789, and the tenure of office created by that law, create4 after great de bate, the President conld have rejnoved auch a Secretary during,the sefsion.of the Senate? Why not? Certainly there is nothmgra the Conatitution .of the United States to prohibit it. The Conatitution haa made two distinct provisions for filling offices. One is bya nomination to the Senate, a confirmation by that body and a comraission by the President on that nonflrmation. The other is the comraission of an officer, when a vacancy happens during a recefis of the Senate. » But the queation now hefoije vou ia not a question aa to how vacanciea shall be filled, jror that the Constitution has provided for, but a question how vacanciea may be erea- ated,' which is a totaqj- distinct question. Whatever mav be thonght of the aoundneas of the Conatitution— arri Vied at after a lengthy debate, in 1789— con cei'ning the tenure of offifce. or concerning thepower of removal from office, no one, I suppose, will queation the fact that a conclusion was arrived at, and that that corfcluaioU \v'asthat thoOonsti- tution ofthe United States had lodge^ with jthe President thispower of reinoval, independentlr „.__ , iof the Senate. Thia may be a decision ^hichou^tto be reversed. It mav have been now reveraed. On that I say nothing at £roBcnt; but that it was made the legislationof Consress 1 1789, and on down to 1867, proceeded >>n the aaaumption. express orimphed. that that deciaion had heen raade, no body who undoratanda the history of the legialation ofthe country will deny. Consider, if you please, what that de ciaion was ; that the Constitution had lodged this power in the Prepident, that ho was to exercise it, andthat tho Sen- ate had not and cquld not have any control whntever over it. If that be ao, what materiality ia it whether the Senato IB in sesBion or.npt? If the Senate ia not in session, and tho President haa this power, a vacancv i« created, and the Constitution has raade provision for filling the vacandv by commieaioning until the end of the next session of the Senate. If the Senate ia in spsaion, then the Constitution haa made, provision for filllflp the vacancy thus created Ijy nomination, and the laws of the country made provision for filling it ad interim, so that if thia be the case within the scope of the decision raade by Congress in 1789, aud within the scope of the legislation which followed on that decision, then it ia a case where, either by force of the Con stitution the Preeident had the power of removal without conaulting the Senate, or else the legialation of Congrosa had given it to him, and in either way, neither the Consu-* tution nor the legialation of Congress had raade it incum bent on him to consult the Senate on the subject. I submit, therefore, that if you look at thia case as it haa been presented on a deciaion raade in l789 on the legidatiou of Congresa following that decision, are'the terms of the . commission under which Mr. Stanton holds, you must coiUe to this conclusion without any further reference to tho subject, that the Senate had nothing whatever to do with the reraoval of Mr. Stanton, either whether the Senate*wae in session or not; that his removal was made either under the co^!«titutional power ofthe Presideht as it had been interpreted in 1789; or if that be eonnidered re versed under the grant made by the Legislature totbe President in reference to all those Secretaries not inclUaed within the Tenure of Office act. This, however, does not .rest sitnply on thia application of tho Conatitution and legislation of Congreaa, Thdro has been, and I ehall bring it before youi a practice on tha part ot the government, going back toa very earlv dav, and coraing down to a recent period, forthe President to make removals from the office, when the caae called for them, without regard to the fact whether the Senate wae in session or not. The instances, of course, would not be numerous where, if the Senate waa in session, he would not send a nomination to the Senate, saying "I appoint A. B. instead of C. D.. removed;" but there wero occasiona, not of frequent occurrence, where the President had not time to select a pereon whom he would nominate ; whero he would not trust the officer then in posscssiou of the office to continue in it, and where it was neceaearyjor him, by a special order, to remove him from the office wholly independent of thenomiuation of his auccessora. Let me bring before your attention a case which hap pened recently within the knowledge of the Senate. Wo were ou tho ev« of a civil war; the War Department waa in tho Jiands of a man who waa disloyal and unfaithful to his trust. His chief clerk, who, on his removal or reaigoa- nation, would como to the place, waa in the aame categbVy with hia master. Under these circumstances, the Prdni- dent of the United States said— "Mr. Floyd, 1 must haVe poBcesaion of the oflice." Mr. Floyd had too rauch good good sense or good something else to do anything but im mediately resign, and instantly the President put in the office General Holt, the Po8tmaater-(3eneral, wilhoat tho delay of an hour, when a delay of twenty-four houra would have been of in ost jpractical consequences. ^ ' ^ There are several of this claaa ot cases arising in all tho departmenta, and followed by this action, and we shall briUg before you evidence showing what thoae cases were, BO that it will appear that as long as officea were held dur ing the plea'aure of the Preeident, and wholly independent of the advice which he might receive from the Senate with reference to their removal, whenever there was an ocea aion for it, the President uaed the power, whether the Senate waa iu seaaion or not. - < I have now given the eonsidertitionB applicable to the Tenure of Office act, and t6 thoae allegations that the Pre aident violated, knowingly violated the Constitution of tho United States in the order for the reraoval of Mr. Stantou from office while the Senate waa in session. The counsel for the Preaident deem thatit iauoteasential in order to hia vindication from this charge, to go farther into the aubject. The President, nevertheleaa, takea a broader view ofthe matter, and it ia due to the President that it should be brought into court, and that I now pro pose to open to your consideration. The Constitution Re quires the Preaident of the United States to take care that tne laws be faithfully executed. It also requires of him, before heis qualified for his office, to swear that he w^U faithfully execute the lawa and that, to the beatbf hia ability he will preserve, protect and defend the ConBtitu tion of tlie United Statea. I suppose that every man will agree that aa long as tlio President in good faith ia endeavonng to take care th&t thelaw^ be faithfully executed, and iaiu good faith, to tho best of his ability, preserving, protecting, and defend ing the Constitution ofthe United States, although he may he-miataken, he has not committed high crimes and mis- Wemeauors. In the execution of these duties the Presi dent found various reasons, which it ia not ray province at thia time to atate, but which will he exhibited to you here- after, that it w as impossible for him to allow Mr. Stantou to continue to hold the ofitce of Secretary of War while ho I was reapousible for his condact iu the manher in which he is required by the Constitution and lawa to be reeponoible This was intimated to Mr.Stanton, and did not produce tlie effect which in the opinion of VreU-informed men such 104 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. an intiraation uaualhrprodnoos,. Thereupon the President first auapended Mr. Sfianton, and reported that fact to the Senate. Certain proceedings took place here, whioh will be adverted to moro particularlr prowutly. Theyresnltodin the roluru of Mr. Stanton to the occu- pationby hira of hia office. Then it was necessary for tho President of the United Btatea to consider firat whether this Tenure of Office act applied to the case of Mr. Stanton; and, BCCond, whether, if it applied lo the caae of Mr,-Stanton, , the law itaelf was , a law of Uie land, or iuoporativo, because conflicting with the Conatitution". Now, I am aware thatit is insisted that it ia the civil and moral duty of all men to obey these laws' that have been pasaed through all the forras of legifslation nntil they shall nave boon doclared by tho judicial autho rity not to be bindinjp; but it ifi ovidont that that is too broad a stateraeut of the civil and moral duty, incumbent either upon private citizens or upon public officera, Iw- cauae, if thia bo the mcasuro ofthe duty, there never could bc a decijion, there never could bo a decree thatthe law in unconati tutional, inaamiich t\fi it is only by disregarding the law that any question can be raided upon it. I submit to Senatora that not only is there no such rule of civil or moral duty, but that it raay be and has been a high and patriotic duty in a citizen to raise a question whether the law ia within the- Constitntion of hia country. - Will any question the patriotism or the propriety of John Hampden's act when he brought the question before tha courts of England, whether ship money waa within the Constitution of England. Not only is there no such rule incurabent upon private citizens, ¦ which forbids them to raise such qircetions, but let me repeat, there raay be. and there gftcn have been infftanooa in which the highest pa triotism and theTpurest civil and moral liberty required it, I*et ine a^kany of you if you wore a trustee for the righta of tliird persons, and if thoae rights of third persona which they could not defend, thomsolvea, by reason perhapa, of flex or age, should be att.\ckod by an tmconstitntional law, should you not deem it your wvcred duty to resist that law and have the quc-stion tried? And if a private trustee may ¦ be aubject to such duty, and impelled by it to such action, how is it posaible to raaintain tuat.ho 'who is m trustee for tlic people, with powers confided to him'for their protec tion, fill paeaing into a law, had ever since been considered aa the seufc of the logi"riativc department on this^aubjflict. Mr; CURTIS continued- Some a,iluBion has been inadu to the fact that thia law waa passed only by tho action of tho Vice President. TJpori that Bubject I beg leavp to read from the Life of Vice Presidout .Adaina, byjiia granda«ni vol. I, pages 448 and 450. . He here givea an account, ao Us as can oe ascertained, of what' that debate was; He tcnmnatce the subject in thisway:— "These reasons" (he says), that Ip, the vice President's reasona. "wore^t comftiitted te paperj however, apd can, therefore, never jbo knoiTU. butin their anbat'ah'ceiffis certain that he nevw had the shadow of a doubt." I refer, also, to lat Stoii'a Commentaries on the Constitntion; section 448, It Tiiill there be found that the learned commentator conaidered a contemporary conatructioh of the Constitntion, whiohytf there desoribea, as of very groat weight in detorminiug hia reasons. Mr. CURTIS read the extract to the effect that tho expfr Bition of various departments of government Hpon-particn- Iar qnestionfl approach fn their naturo and have the aame j-Qcom men dation that, belongs to a'law. He continued.— Ill comparing the decision made in 1789 with tho tests which are here suggested by tho writer, it willbe found in the fii*Bt place that the precise question waa under discusMoni secondly, that there Wjis a deop aense of ita importance, for it was seen that the decisiou was not to affect tlio few osmb arising hei-e and there iipt the course of the governmeut, btit tliat it would enter deeply into its practical anddaitfad* minlRtration. ; In tho next place the determine wsa, ao far as auph a flft* termination could bo entertained and carried into effect th---reby to fix the systeni for' thtS future. And in ,the,lA|t place, tho men who participated in'it must bo admijltedib have been exceedingly well qualified for their task. There is another rule to bo added to thia, which, is alao of yerr frequent application, and that Ia, tl^at a long cOntinttea practical application ofa deciaioii'of this character hy thoae to whom tho nxecution of alaw is,confidodiApf de cisive weight, I will borrow again from Lord Cote; "op**- mm legum interpres conS?*eft*tio" pracfiico is' the last in terpre t-** tion of the law. Now. what fuUowed thia origi nal docifiion? From 1789 down to' 1867 evorf Senator, every Preaidont and every Congresi participated in and acted under tho cohBtruelion of the governmont in 17^. Not only was tho governmeutiocondnctcd, but it x-rffta a subject sufficiently di«u«(od ambng the people to bring to their consideT** t&oa that aUch a questian hod ejiiated. had beeUBCttM IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. W5 in this manner, had beeu raided again from time to time, and yet, aB everybody kiibws. they were ao far from interfering with this decision, so iar from exprossinjc in any manner their didapprobation of tho practice wmch had gi'own up under it. It is well known that all parties favored and acted upou thia sVstom. At thia ' point, 2'20, ou motfoi^ of Mr. EDMUNDS, a re- GOBS of fifteen minutea waa ordered. After the recess the court was, aa usual, alow in reassem bling. At a quarter before three Senator MORRILL (Me') moved to adjourn and called the yeas nnd nays, which proved effectual in drawing in tho absentees. Senators McCi'eery and Patterson tTenn.) only voted yea i Senator Morrill himaelf voting nay. Mr. CURTIS continued, after recapitulating the pointhe was diacuasing before the receSs, as followa ;— Thia is a aubject whiiah haa heretoforo been examined apd passed upon judicially in very numerous cases. I do Uot speak now, of cbprae, of judicial deciaions of thia par ticular qucBtiou which is under conaideration, whether the Constitution his lodged the power of reraoval in the President alone, or'in tho President and tho Senate, or h:ia left^it^ in part to the Legii'lative power, but I speak of the Judicial exposition of such a practical construction of the Constitution of the United Sfiites, originating in the way iu which this was originated, continued in the way in which this was continued, and sanctioned in the way in which thia has been aanctioncd. There was a very early case wMch arose soon after the organization of the government, and reported under the name of Stewart against , lit Cranch's RepOrta, 299. It involved a question conceming the interpretation ofthe Constitution aa to the power which the Legirflature had to aaaign to the Judgea or the Supreme Court certain duties. From that time down to the decision of the case of ; against tbo Port Wardens of Philadelphia, reported in the 12th Howard. 315, a period of more than half a century, there haB been a series of judicial deciaions on the fact of auch a cotemporaneous construction of the Conatitution, followed by such a practice in accoi ance with it ; and it is uow a fixed and ."ettled rule, which I think no lawyer will undertake to controvert, that the effect of such a con atruction is not merely to give weight to an argument, but to fix an interpretation, and, accordingly, it will be found, by looking into the booka written' By those who were cognizant of the subject, that they have ao considered and held. Ibegleavetorefer to theraoet eminent of all commen tators on Anjerican lawa, and will- read from Chancellor Kent's lectures, found in the first volurae, page 310. mar ginal paging. After considering this subject— and it should p:; noted in reference tp this very learned and exrerienced mriflt^-considering it in an unfavorable light, becauae he himt^elf thought that, as an original Question that had bet ter have been settled the other way, that it would have bteep.moi'e logical, more in conformity with his views of Tfrhat the practical heads of the government were, that Uie Senate should participate witfi the Preeident inthe power of removal. Nevertheleaa, he auras it up in thia wise :— ' This amounted to a legislative construetion of the Con atitution, aud it haa ever since been acquiesced in and acted upou as of decisive authority of the case, and it ap plies equally tq every other officer of tlie governraent appointed by the Preaident and the Senate, whose tirae ef duration ia not apecially declared. It is supported bv the tvritten reason that the subordinate officera inthe Execu tive departmenta ought to hold at the pleasure of the head -of that department, becauee heia interested generally with tho Executive authority, and every participation in that authority by the Senate is an exception to the geueral principle souijht to be taken strictlv. The President ia the ereat responsible officer fqr the faithful execution of th^ iwa, and the power of fenipval was incidental to that duty, and might often be reqiBaite to fiilfiU it. - TniSj I believe, will be found to be a fair expreaaion of dhe opinion of thoae who had occaaioU to examine this sublet in their researches, or 3,3 a matterof spoculatioU.# choice is an advisory action only at "a "p articular Itara In thia case, however,_the Ffesident of the United- States ( ifter the nomination, and defers the appointment or com miaaion. Now, aa I have aaid before, Mr. St&ntou was appointed under the law of 1789 constituting the War Department, in accordance with that law. He was commissioned to hold during the pleasure of the President. He (President Lin^ coin) has aaid to the Senate— "I nominate Mr. Stanton to hold the office of Secretary for the Departraent of War during my pleasiire." The Senate has said:— "We assent to Mr. Stanton holding the office of Secretary for tho Do- partment of War during the pleasure of the Preaident.** What was thia for? If it operates in the case Of^a, Stanton ao that Mr. Stanton can hold office againat tho will of the President, contrary to the terras of his commit. sion, contrary to the law under which hewas appointedL ddwnto theSth of April, 1869- forthie new law fixed and extended the term— whero is Mr. Stanton's coramisaionS Who made the Appointment? Who has assented to it? It is al^ijlatiyeact;it is a legislate appointment; it ia aa. in the President alone or in the Senat^. , Certainly an iw- accuracy ; but, then, it reatiii-ed A very close scrutiny, aud a careful exaraination of tne individiialopiuion expreaaed in that debato, to aacortain that it had been determined iu one way or tho other. The Conatitution settled the question. Nevertheless, as I'nnderataud— and I may be raistakca in thie, but aa I un derstand— it ia the theory of thiu law which the Preaident hadbefore hira that both of thase opinions were wroipg; that the Constitution haa not lodged the power anywhere. except that it has left it, as I understand, a legacy whicu may^De controlled, of course, by the Legislature itself, ae^ cording to its will; boeause, aa Chief Juatice MarshaU somewhere reraarks— and it is ono of those pertinent rcg- marlcs which will be found to havo been carried by him into many of his decisions- when it corae to a questioa wither a power exists, tho peculiar mode in whioh it muat be oxercised must he left to the will of the body that poBseasea it. And, therefore; il'tbia be a logisl'Uive power, it wa5very appaj-ent to the President ofthe United Statea, as it would have been ver.y apparent to Mr. Madison, and aa declared by him in the course of hia corrospondence-^ which is no doubt farailiar to tho Senators—that jf this be a legisljktive power, the Legislature raay lodge it in the Senate, may retain it in the two Honsea ofCongreaa, or maj' give it to the Honse of Repreaentativea. I repeat, the President haa to construe this particula* law. Ab I understand the theory of law, 1 do not uudertakq to aay it is an unfounded claira ; I do not undertake to 'cy that it raay not bo maintained auccessf ully, but I do under take to sav that it was originally qneationed by the ablest minda that had this Subject under consideration in 1789; that whenever the question has been started aince. it has had, through a recent period, a few advocates, and that uo fair, candid mind can deny or doubt at this day that it is capable of being doubted and disbelieved after examine/- tion. It may be the truth, attai all, but it is not a truth which shines with BUbh a clear Trad certain light that a mania guilty of a crime becausehe does not perceive it. The Preaident had not ouly to construe this particular law, but he hud to construe ita application, its constitiv tional ability to apply to thii particular case, supposing the caafi of Mr. Stanton to be what I have endeavored to show* which wasuot within ita terma. Let us assume that the 'caae ia within its application; let us assume that the pro viso, in describing the case of the Sbcretary, described the case of Mr.Stantou. Did Mr, Stanton, having beeu appointedby President Lincoln, under the act of 1862, and eommisaipned to hold during the pleasure of the President, by force of this law acquire a nght to, hold thiB ofilca againat the will of the President until ApHl 1869. Now, there is one thing certain that haa been doubtedr- undcr the Constitution itis not capable of being doubted-- and that is, thatthe Preaideut ia to make the choice of ofhceraj Whether, having made the choice, and being inr ducted- into otfice. they can' be removed, ia another ques tion ; to fhe President alone is confided the power bf choice. In the firet place, he alone can nominate. Wlien th& Senate Jias consented to the noraination he ia not bound to cominission the oflicers. He has a aecond opportunity for the consideration and acceptance or rejection of the choice he originali)' made. Upon tltda subject allow me to read from the opinion of Chief Justice Marahall, in the case of agaiuBt , whbre itia expreaaed more clearly than I can db. Mr. CURTIS read from the opiniona which enunoiatp the clauses of the Conatitution bearing upon the subject, and'said theae seem to contemplate three distinct opera>- tions :-7-The nomination, which is the sole voluntary act of the President, and the appointment, which is alao his voL- untary act, by and with thex advice and consent of the Senate ; thpn the commisaion, to grant which might peij- hapa^be deemed a duty'enjoined by' the Constitution. The opinion, however, holdB that it is optional with tha President to coramisiion after appointment. He continued :—AU thia shows that the choice ia with the PreBident, that the action of the Senate upon the had to construe, not merely the general queation whero this power was lodged— not merely the effect of thia deci sion, made In 1789, m the practice ofthe government under It-^but he had to construe a particular law, the provisiona of which were before him, and might have an application to the case upon which he felt called npon to act ; and it fe necessary, in order to do jupticetothe President in re ference to this matter, to exaraine what the theory of the law is, and what its operation ia or rauat be. if any, upon the law which he had before him— namely, the caae of Mr Stanton. During the debate in 1789 there were three diatinct theories, by ditterent povonsii) the House of Representa tives. Iheone wasthautheConBtitution had lodged the powers of removal with the President alone; the other waa that the Constitution had lodged the power with the President, acting only by and with the consent of the Sen^ ate; tho third was that the Conatitution hUd lodged it nowhere, but had left it to the legislative' powers, to be acted upon iu counectiou With the prescription of the ten- ore of office. ' The last of these theories waa, at that day, held by but comparatively iew persona. The first t\v'0 received.»not only the greater number of votes, but mltch the greater weightof reason in tho course of that debate, so much ao that wheu this aubject cainiQ' under the conaideration of the Supremo Court of the United Statea, in au ex parte Xflfe, Mr. Justice Townaend, who delivered the opinion .of tho court in that caa.', aaya thatit haj never been doubted that the ponstitution had lodged the power either aented to by the two branchea ot Congreas, acting in the!& legislative capacity, and no other. The President has had no voice in the matter ; the Senate, as the advisers of the Preaident, have had no voice iu thoTuatter. If he holds it fidl, beholds it by force of legislation, aud not by any choic* made by the President or assented to by the Senate, Thia was the case, and the only caae, which the Proafc dent had before huu, aud on which he was to cousidtS whether, for having formed au opinion oil the ConatitE tion of tho United totates— an opinion #hich he shares ¦rtith every Preaident who has preceded T^im, with every Congress which haa preceded thelaat;ancpiaiou formed 106 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOH]*fS0N. on the grounda^whilch I have imperfectly indicated; an opinion which, when applied to this particular case. raises the doubts which I nave indicated here arising out of the fact that this law does not pursue either of the opinions which were originally iheldou thia subject, aud have occasionally been stated and maintained by thoae who were reetleaa under ita operation; an opinion juatified by the practice of the government from its origm down to the preaent tirae. If he raight properly and honestly forra snch an qpiniou under the lights which he had, and with the aid of this advice which we ahall show 3'ou he received, then ia he to be impeached for acting upon It to the extent of obtaining a judicial deciaion whether this department of the Execu tive Department of the government was right iu ita opmion, or whether the Legislative Departmeut was right in Its opinion? Well, strangely enough, the honorable managers themselves aay, "No, he is not to be impeached for that." I beg leave to read from the argument, of the houorable manager, by whonl the case for the prosecution was ppened, "Jf the President had reallv deaired solely to teat the constitutionality of thelaw orhiB legal right to reraove Mr. Stanton, inatead of his defiant message to the Senate, of February 21, informing them of his reraoval, but not Buggesting the purpoae, which is thus shown to be an after thought, ne would have said in substance, 'Gentle men of the Senate, in order to test the constitu tionality of the law entitled an act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, which I verily believe to ¦be unconstitutional and void, I have issued an order for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from tho office of Secretary for the Deipartment of War. I felt mvaelf con strained to make this removal, lest Mr. Stanton should an swer the information in the nature of a quo warranto, ¦ which I intend the Attorney-General shall file at an early day, by sayin^g thitt he holds the office of Secretary of War by the appointment aud authority of Mr. Liticolrij which has never neen revoked. Anxious that there shall be no colliaion or disagreement between the aeveral de- fiartments ofthe government ajad the Executive, I lay be-' ore the Senate the message, as the reason of my action, as well aa the action itself, ior the purpoae indicated, may meet your consideration.'' , ^ Thus far the quotation shovrs the communication which ' the Preaident shouldhaveobtaincdfrom the m:inagera and aent to the Senite in order to make the mattter exactly right. Then followa this:— "Had tbe Senate received auch a raeaaage tho repreaentativea of the people might never have deemed it ueceasary to impeach the President for BHch an act, to insnre the safety of the eountry, even if they had denied-the accuracy of the legal poaition." so that it seems that it ia, after all, not the reraoval of Mr. Stanton, but the raanner in which the Preaieent communi- cated the fact of that removal, after it waa madepublic,. tlie President is to be impeached for. That mesaage is called here "the defendant's message of fhe 2lBt of Feoruarv." I have read that meesage as you all have read it. If you can find anything in it but wJiat is decorous and respectful to the Seuate and to all con cerned, your taatea are different from mine. But whether it be a poiut of the managers, well or ill conceived, one thing seeras to be quite clear, that the President ia not im- peHChed here because he entertained an opinion that the taw wasunconatitutiobal; he is uot impeached here be causehe acted on that opinion, aud removed Mr. Stan tou ; but he is impeached nere because the House of Re- SresenTativeacomidera that this honorable body was ad- reased by a defiant raeaaage, when it should have been addressed in tho terma which the honorable manager has dictated. ' I now corae, Mr. Chief Justice and Senatora, to another topic connected with thia matter of the removal of Mr. Stanton, and the aetion of the Preaident under it. The honorable managera take the ground, among others, that whether, uponaconatruction of this Tenureof Oifice act, Mr. Stauton is not legally Secretary of War, or eveu if you should believe the Preriident thought it unconstitutional and had a rieht in aome way to construe it, by his own conduct and declaratimi the Preaident iseatopped; heia not to be permitted to assert the true interpretation of th^a law ; he is not to be perraitted to allege that his purpose was to teat the 5iue8tiQn concernin:? its constitutionality; and the reason is that he haa done and aaid' auch and such. thinga. Well we all know that there is at common law a doc frine called rules of estoppel, founded undoubtedly on good reason, although they were called in the titUe of Xjord Coke, and have been down to tho present d^-v, odious, because they shut-out the truth, neverthelesa there are circumstances when it is proper the truth Bho,uld be shut out. What arc these circumstances? They are, where a question of private right is involved, where, in a matteroffact the private right accrues, and wherein the {larty to the controversy does hiraself what he ought not n cood conscience to be allowed either to assert or d,my. But did any one ever hear of estoppel iu r a matter of 'law? Did any one ever hear that a party had put himself into i!uch a condition, that wheu he carae into a court of justice upon a claira of private right, he could not a-*W a judge to coHi^true an estoppel and insiiit on sncu aconatruc-. tioii? Did anybody ever hear, least of all, thata raan waa ail'ected by reason of an estoppel, under anv system of jnrisprndonce that ever prevailed in the civilized world— that tho Pryrfidc'ut of the United States should be im peached and removed frora office, not by reason of the truth of his case, but becauao he is estopped from appeal ing. Jt would be a spectacle for God anjd man, . t- > . There is no raatter of fact hero. THey have themselves put iu Mr. Stanton's commiasion, which shows the date of : the commission, andthe'terms ofthe commission, andthat is the whole matter of tact involved. The rest ia the coa- atruction of this Tenure of Otfice act, and the application of it to the case, whiqh they have thus made for them selves, and also the construction of the Constitution ofthe United Statea in the abstract gueation, whether that waa lodged the power of Removal with the Preaideut, with the Senate, or with both. i reapectfully Bubiuit, therefore,, in reply to thia grouaflt which U taken here, that no conduct of tho President, who endeavors to assert, uot a private right, but a great public right, confided to hia otfice by the people^ in which, if any body ia eatopped, ,lhe, people miay be estopped, that nothing that the President could do or say, could put thi? g-reat public right into that extraordinary position. What has he done? what are the fiicts which they rely upon, out of which to work thia, eatoppel as they call it? Why,'in the first place he sent a' message to the Senate, on December 12, 1867, informing the Senate that he had auapended Mr. Stanton by a certain order, a copy of which he gave ; that he had appointed General Grant to exercise the duties of that otfice, ad inte* , rim, by a certain order, a copy of which he gave, ahd then entered iato a discussion, in which he showed the exist ence of this queation. Whether Mr. Stauton waa in the Tenure of Office bill, and the, existence of the. other ques- tibn, whether this was or was Uot a conatitutional law. Then he revoked the action of the Sen'ite. There was nothing misrepresented; there was nothing, concealed., which he waa bound to atate. It is complained by the honorable, managers that he did not tell the Senate tnatif their liction should be Buch aa to reatoro Mr. Stau- amoug the managers, and which thev so inaist upon' here, would hardly ineiat that the Preaident should have held out to the Senate something which might possibty have been rejected. They said he made a case for their action, in yrhich he was the defendant to the Senate, bpth, by reason of their conduct aud hia, and alao other couduct too deferential. Senartors, therfr is no incondatency in the Preaidenf s poaition or couduct in this instance. Suppose a party who has a private right in question, submit to the sole tribunal in the same proceeding, those questions:— First, I deny the conatitutiun-.ilitv under which tho right ia claimed againat, rae; secondly, I assert that the interpretation of that law will not affect the caae: thirdly, I insist that even if it ia within the laws, I have madi3 a case within the laws. j la'there any mconsiatency inthat? Is it not seen every day, or aomething analag.oaa to it. in courti of juatloe"? Suppose the President had summed up his message ia this wav:— I insist, in the firat place, that the law is ua* constitutional ; I insist, in the second place, that Mr. Stan ton 13 not within the law ; and I respectfully submit, in the ihirdplace, whether, if it be a conatitutional law and Mr. Stanton be within It, the facts that I preaent to you be not made auch a case that you will uot ask rae to receive him back?" Kc haa questioned whether the law waa constitu tional and whether Mr, Stanton waa withiu it, and then he aubinits that he had reason to believe and did think that thA law ^as unconstitutional; that he had uo reaaon to believe that they thought Mr, Stantou was within it; he flubmitted to their cMajderation the facts that he acted upon and within it. Well, the President, it seemSi has uot only beeu thus anxious to avoid^ biit has taken measures to avoid a colliaion with the Senate, but he hae actually, in aome thingd ehe, obeyed it. Mr. Ourtia went on to refer to the commiaaion of acta ori which chybgea have been made by the President, and with hw sanction, and to the reirrtval and Buspeu>ion of col lectors, etc., said it had doubflessbeen done -under the law, and when au emergency arose, as in case of Mr, Stanton, when he must, either act or abandon the power thathe ^olds, it was insisted upon that he must run agaiuBtthe law, aud take every possible opportunity to give it a blow. On questions of administrative duty merelv, the Presif dent felt boundi to obey it. Wheu this emergency, how^ ever, arose, eo that this department of the governraent could not be carried on. he muat meet it. He did not fear embarrassment or difficulty in the public service becauw pf the auppenaion or removal of a fraudulent collector. These changes in the coinmiBsionB, issued had nothing to do wiih thesubject. They weremade subject to conditmufl prescrib4;d by law, one of which was the Senate must con sent to a removal. Not only the law. of Cougress, but the Constitution was the law of the laud. The changes in the Treaaury Department, al«o, had uothing to do with the subject of hia raraoval. Wherever it was vested, all offlh qers are held subject to the power of removal Which, is vested soinewh^'e. He saw nothing in this subject of eatoppel growing out of the action of the Preaident, either iu the meaaage tp the Seuate ot Deceraber 18. or in the changes iu the come missions, or m the sending to the Senate notices of auft- pension Qf difterent officers, that has any .bearing on the coQstruction of the 'lenure of Office act, as affecting the case of Mr. Stanton. The law might be eonatitutioBal, the President might have acted, and .might havo been bound to act undent; still, if Mr.. Stanton was not within it thp caae remains as it waa originally, and the case nOt being within that law the fiftt article was entirely with out toundatioa,. At thia point Mr, Curtis plead fatigrne, and, bn mo tion of Mr, JOHNSON, the court adjourned uutfl noon to-morfbw; and at 3-50 P. M., the Seuate weni into Escecutlve Session, and voon after, adjouroed. IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 107 PROCEEDINGS OF FRIDAY, APRIL 10. The President pro tffm called the Senate to order. Prayer was offered by the ChapUin. The chair was tben vacated for the Chief Justice, and the Court was opened by ptoolamaiion in due farm. The managers aud membera of the House of Eep- resentativea were succeisively anilotinced, and took their places. The j'ournal of yesterday was read, and in the mean time Ihe galleries had become about half fllled. Geueral Sherman agam occupied a seat ou the floor. Mr. CURTIS, of the President's counsel, resumed his argument at 12*15, What with the buzzing conversation of uninter ested newspaper correepoudeats and other sources, lind the reporters' remote positions, occasional imper fections may be found in tbe report Mr. Curtis Resumes his Areuinent. Mr- CURTIS eaid:— Mr. Chief Justice— Among the points which I omitted to notice yesterday is one which seems to me of specific importance, aud which Induces roe to return to it for a few moments. If you will indulge me, I will read a short passage from Sa turday's proceedings. In the course of those proceed- Inen, Mr. Manager Bntler said:— "It will bo Been, therefore, Mr. PrcBidcnt aud Senators, that the Preaident of the UnitedStates says in this auswer tliat he auapended Mr. Stariton under the Constitution in- dofinltely, and at his pleasure, and I propose now, unless it be objected to, to show that that is falae under his own hand, and I have his letter to that effect, which if there ia BO objection, I will read, the signature of which was iden tified by C. E. Creecy:— ' ,.,,,, Then followed the reading of the letter, which is as fol- Imve :— "ExeoutiVb Mansion, Washingtow, D. C, Aug. 14, 1867.— Sir:— Incompliance with the eighth section of the act of Congress of March 2, 1867, entitled 'an act regu- Uting the tenure of certain civil oflicea,' you are hereby Botihed that on the 12th inat Hqn, Edwin M. Stanton was suspended frora office as Secretary of War, and General Ulysses S. Grant authorised and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim,. "I am, sir, very respectfullv, yours, ' "^ "ANDREW JOHNSON. •To Hon. Hugh McCulloch, Secretary bf the Treasury." This letter waa read to show, uuder the hand or the President, that when he aays in his answer that he has re- ?ioved Mr, Stanton by virtue of the Tenure of Office act, bat Btatement wasa falsehood. Allow me now to read the 8th section of that act :— ' *1'hat whenever the President Bhall, without the advice and consent ofthe Senate, designate, authorize or employ any person to perform the dutiea of any otfice, ho anall forthwith notify the Secretary of the Troasiiry thereof, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury thereupon to coraraunicate such notice to all the proper accounting and disbursing officers in hia department.'* The Senate will perceive that this section haa nothing to do with the suspension of an officer, but the purport of the section is chat in caae the President, without the advice and consent of the Senate, shall, under any circumstance. designate a third person to perforra, temporarily, the du ties of the office, he is ti6 make a report of that durignation to the Secretary of the Treaaury. who ia to give the neces- Bary iuformation to the accounting officers. The section applies in terms to, and includes all cases it applies to, and £ichides the deaignatiou on account of sicKuesa, or ab- Bonce, or resiguatlon, or any cauae of vacancy, whether temporary or permanent, whether occurring by reason of a BUfpension or a removal; and, therefore, when the PreBi dent says to the Secretary of the Treaaury, "I give youi Dotice that I have designated Geueral Thomaa to peiform Uie duties ad interim of Seoretary of War," he makea no •lluaion, by force of that letter, to the manner in which that vacancy occurred ; and, therefore, inatead of showing, guder the President's fOWn hand, that he haa repeated a il'chood, it haa no reference whatever to the raatter, ¦ Mr. BUTLER— Will you read the second section. If you iHease. The first clause ofthe aecond section? Mr. CURTIS (reading) :— "That when any officer ap pointed as aforeaaid, excepting judges of the UnitedStates courta, shall( during the recess of the Senate, be shown' by eridence aatisfactory to the Preaident." i&c. Tbe President ie allowed to auapend such officers. Now, thePresident states in his answer that he did not act vnder it. Mr, B LITLER— That is not reading the section. MnCUR'l'lS— I am aware that ic la uot reading the sec tion. It Ih a very long aection. Mr. BUTLEH— The first clause of tho section is all I n ant, Mr. CURTIS— It allows *lie Preaident, because of crime or other occasion deaignated in it, to suspend the officer. The section applies to all occatlonH. Whether suspeuslont underthis second section— whether temporary disqualifi cation, fickneas, death, resignation— no matter what that causo may be, if for any reason there isf a vacancy, he ifl lUthorlzed to designate a peraon to aupply tho ofhce ad 'nteriin, of which notice is to be given to the Secretary of ttie Treaautv. Therefore, I repeat, sir, that the subject matter of thia eighth aection, and the letter which the President wrote in conaequence of it, haa no reference to the BU bjoct of the authority upon which he removed or Suspended Mr. Stanton. ' I now aak the attention of the Senato to the second ar ticle, and 1 will begin as 1 began before by stating what la the aubstance of thia article. I hope the Senate will bo able to sec now every one of these allegations is contro verted by what Ib already In the case, aud that,! ahall be enabled to state what we propoBe to offer by way of proof . in reapect to each of them. The first aubitantial allega tion m thia article Ib the delivery of tlie letter of au thority to General Thoraas without authority of law; that it waa an intentional violation of the Tenure of Office ' act;thatit waa an intentional violation of tho Conatitu tion of the United States, and the delivery of the order to General ihomas- was raade with intent to violate that act and the Conatitution of the United Statea. That ia the substance of the second article. Now, the Senate will at onco perceive that if the auspen- sion of Mr. Stanton waa uot a violation of the act in point of fact—or, to state it in other terms, if the case ot Mr. Stanton ia not within the act, then his suspenaion or his removal, if he. has been actually removed, or a removal which did actually take place, would not be a violation of the act; because if his case la not within the act at all, which does not apply to the case of Mr. Stanton, of courBO his removal is not in violation of this act. If Mr. Stantou continued to hold under the commiasion which he received from President Lincoln, and has conti nued to hold under tho act of 1789, it was no violation of the Tenure of Oflice act that Mr. Johnson removed or in tended to remove Mr. Stauton; and, therefore, the Senate will perceive that it is necessary to come back again, to recur under this article, because it will bc found necessary to recnr under the whole of the first eight ai'ticles, to the inquii'v whether Mr. Stanton's cdse waa within the Tenure of Ofiice act; secondlv, whether it was so- clearly and plainly within that act that it can be attributed to the Preaident aa a high misdemeanor, that ho considered it aa not including that caae. But, suppose the case of Mr. Stan ton Ib within the Tenure of Office act, atill the inquiry arises whether the delivering of thia letter of authority to General Thoraas was a violation of the act, I shall neces sarily aak your careful attention to the general subject matter of this act andthe particular provisiona contained in it. Senatora will remember undoubtedly that this act, as it •^'asftnall.y passed, differed in many particulara from the bill aa it was originaUy introduced. inu law related lo two distinct subjects- the one to the aubjectof rehioval, thb other to the' aubjectof ap- polntmenta to office. It aeema that a practice had grown up under the government, that where a person waa norainated to the Senate for an office, and when the Se nate either did not act upon his doraination or rejected it, it was considered, competent for the Preeident, after the adjournraent of the Senate, by a teraporary com mission to appoint that same peraon to the same office. That was deemed by a large majority of Senators tc be an abuse of power- not au intentional abuse of power. It was a practice that had prevailed under the govern ment to a very considerable extent. It was uot limited to recent yeara. It had been supported by the opinions of the Attorney-Generals; but atill it was esteeraed ty Senators to he a departure from the spirit of the Constitu tion, and in derogation of the just powers ofthe Senate iu reference to nominations to office. That beiug so, it will be found on examination of this law that the firet and se cond sections of the act related exclusiveV to removala from office and to temporwry auBpensIons during a recess of the Seuate; whereas, tho other sections, to which I shall particularly ask your attention, related excluaively to that other subject of temporary appointmenta—appointmentB made to oifice after the Senate had i-efused to concur in the nomination of the person appointed. This law provides that the President shall have power to fill all vacancies which may happen durmg a recess of. the Senate, by reaaon of death or resignation. It will be remarked that this deos not' include all cases. It doesi not include the case of the expiration of a coramission, but it includes aimply death and resignation during the rucesa of the Senate: Why this waa so I do sot know. It ia ma nifest that the law does not affect them. In point of fact^ it does not cover all cases that may arise, even belongina to this general cla.=B, to which the section was deBlgnea to refer. It provides that the President shall hava power to fill all vacaucies which may happen during the recess of the Senate, by reaaon of death or resignation, by granting cominiasiona whiih ahall expire at the end of the next seseion thereafter ; aud if no appointment by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ahaU bemad* to such oifice, during siich next session, then auch office shall remain in abeyance without any salarvj fees or emoluments attached thereto, until the aame shall be filled. by appointment, by nnd with the advice and consent of the Senate; and during such time all powers and d ties belonging fo such office shall be exercised by such other officer aa may by law exeraise auch, powers and dutiea, In case of vacancy in such office,, all the offices brought within the provision of a va cancv occurring during the receaa ofthe Senate, and all tho (tiling of that vacancy by the President, aro treated aa iwing into abeyance uuIcbb the Senate ahall havo asaeutud^ 108 IMPEAOHMEHT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. to some nomination before its [adjournment, and that ap pliea, as I have said, to the two classes of cases, namely, vacancies happening by reason of death or resignation, but It do*i- not apply to any other vacancv. The next section doss not relate to that subject, but to the subject of re moval:— "Nothing in thia act shall be conatrued to extend the term of any officer," Sie. The fifth section is "that if any person ahall, contrary to tiie provisions of this act. accept auy appointment to or employment in any office, or shall otherwise attempt to ¦ hold or exercise any such office or employment, they ehall be deeraed and declared to be guilty of a high rair-do- meannr, aud upon trial and conviction therefore, ahall be puniuhed.by a fine not exceeding $10,000 and byimpriaon- mcnt." What are the provisions of thia act ih relatiou to accepting any appointment? They are found in the third flection of the:act putting some offices into abeyapce under similar oircumstaucca, which are described iu that sec- e^tion. f Ifany peraon doea accept an officewhichiathus put into abeyance, or any emolument or authority in reference to auch office, becomes within the penal proviaions of the fifth section ; but outside of that there ie no Buch thing as accepting an office contrary to the provisions of the act, becauae the provisions of the act extend uo further than to those cases. And so of the next section. Every removal, appointment or employment made, had or exerciaed con trary to the provisiona of this act, Aic, shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a high miademeanot. The stress of this article does not seem to me to depend at all upon this question of the construction of the lavC^, but upon a to tally difibrent raatter, which I agree Bhould foe fai^y and carefully considered. . , • ^ The allegation inthe article ia that thia letter of au thority waa given to" General Thomaa, enaWing him to per- ^ form the dutiea of Secretary of War act interim, without authority of law. That I conceive to be the main inquiry which arises under this- articlie, provided the case ofiMr. Stanton and hia removal cornea under the Tenure of Otfice act at all. I wish firat to bring to thb attention 'of tho Senate the act of 1795, wbich is found in 1- Statutes at Large, p. 450. It ia a short act, and I will read the .Whole ofit:— ^'Be it enacted, mpt to eaii^y out. « .^^ 'If Mr. Stanton'a caae iB not within the Tehute of Office act; if. as I bo freque utly have repeated, he held his onice nnder the aot of 1789, and during the pleasure of the PfeBi-' deut, tho moment he received that order which General Thomas carriedto him, that momsnt there was a vacancy; In point of law, however; he may have refused to obey th& order in point of fact. The Sf'uate will obaerve that two Ifettera were delivered to ^General Thomas attire same time, one ot them an order to Mr. Stantou to vacate the office, and the other a direction to General Thoraha to take poaneasion of the office. When Mr. Stantoh bbeyB the order just given, may not the Preeident isEue a letter of authority, in contemplation that a vacancy {:• about to occur? Is he bound to take a techni^l view of [the subject, and to have the order which cre^iteB the vacancv fitst sent and delivered, and then to sit dowh to his table, aud afterwards sign a letter to an otiier to hold the office? If the President expects a va- cancy;if he has done anact whichln hia judgment ia suffi cient to create a vacancy, raay he not sign the ueceasary paper anpolnting another to carry on the duties of the ofhce"? Ifl have been succesBfulin'the argument which I hjvve alreftdy addrease^ to you, you muat be uf the opinion t^at, in point of faet fhere was no violation of the Consti tution of fhe United States in delivering' this letter of au thority, because the Constitution raakes no provi^don for thi^ temporary authority; and the ' \a.w of Congress has made no provision for it. Uure, arno, I beg leave to remind .the Senate that tbe <5ase docs not fall withiu the Teuure of Office act. If the orderwhich the President gave to Mr. Stantouto.vacate the office fvas a lawful order, and one which he w^s bound to obey, 'e^irythingr -contained in this article, aa well as th^ E receding urtlf:lea, falla. It is'impos9lble;l1mbralt; for tfie Onorable thanagora td cohstrtict a c^of ah intention on the part of the President to violate tho Conatltiltion of the Ubited States by 'anything winch' he'didinrefevohceto the appointment of Geueral TbomaH; pfovidod thatthe order to Ur. Statfon waa a lawful omer, and he ^as' bound to obey it. , ' I advance now. Senators, tp a different claas of articles, which mavho called the conspiracy articles, because. they rest iipon a charge of a coUdpiracaLjrctween the Preaident attdChniflralThamai. ' "-^ . . Thereitefour ofiheih. The fourth, fifth, aixt^ and seventh lh ntfmher as they ttand. Tho fourth and cttxth are foUnd nnder tbe act of July 31; 18B1, which is found in the 12th vbl. of Statittea at jjarge. page. 286, The fifth and aeVenth are found under nd ?ct Of Congress. They allege an unlawful conspiracy, but hey refW to no law by which the acts charged are made unlawful. The acts charged are called unlawful, but there ia no lafV referred to, and no case made by the article within any i^w of the UnitOd States; and I therefoi-e ahifll treat thcBC ^tieiea,; the fburrh afid' aixth. aud the fifth and seventh together,%ecaafie I thihk they belong In that or der. ' The fourth and sixth dharge a conspiracy within the Conspiracy act < It is necesaary for me to -state the aubstance of the law in ord^rthat yoii> may see whether i It ean have any posal-' ble appKcation to the >case. ' It waa paased on tltc 3lat of Jul3', 1861, and isicntitled "an act to define and puuish certaiii conspiractos.'^ It enacts that if two or raore per- | BonB within the Staties or Territortea of the Unitud States shall'eouspire together to oveithrowj or put down, or de stroy by force, the Government of the United States ; or to levy Kvar upou the United States'; orto oppose by force the authcHQ^ of Che Governmeut of the United States, or by force to preveut, hinder or delay tbo execution of anv law iqrce, or intlraidatioh, or threats to prevent any personj flora cccupyiqg or holding any office of trust orplaaf.of. confidence under tha Uuited Statoa-r-^thcy ahall be guilty . of conapiracy. . ¦ ^ . The fourth and.sjiKth arUclea contain allogationa that the* Fresi4eat and General Thomaa conspired together, by^ force, ' intimidation and fibreats, to prevent Mr. Stantpn. from dontinuing to hold the office of Secretaiy for the De- Eartiueut of Warv and also that they couapired together,. y Iprcej to obtain poaseesion of property belonging to the Ui|iiicd;$ta|tes. , These are the two articles \vhich I sup pose are designed to be drawn under this act, and thesie. are the aUcgatiouB which are intended to be austained by it. Now, it does seein to mo that the powei? to Threat. this law to any bearing whateoever upon this case, Ib one; of the moat extraordinary attempts oyer made. In the first place, so far from ita having been designed to apply to the President of the United States, or to any act, which he might do in the course of the execution of what; he believed to be his duty, or to apply to any man or anyr thing in the District of Columbia at all, the words of thai act are that, "If two or more pereons within any State or Territory or the United States not within the District of, Columbia'* shall do so and so. Now tbis ia a highly penal, law, and au indictment charging things done under thlB) law within the District of Colimibia would, I undertake to say, be quashed on demurrer, becauae the act is raade ap phcable to certain portions ofthe country, and ia not made applicable to the District of Columbia. We arc not how ever, standing upou that polat which is a technical point, ; ' nor do I refer to ;\t with any auch iutentioh, but let us see ' what is thiB case. ' ' . The President , if of opinion that Mr. Stanton holds the office of Secre|;ai-y for the Department of War at hia plea- Bure. Ke thinks ap, first becauBe Mr. Stanton is not pro.i vided for in the Tenure of Office act, and that no tenure of ' office Is secured to him. He thiuka ao. aecond, becau?« . he believes that it would be judicially decided, if the , queation could be raised, that the law depriving nim of tlie< power of removing an officer at his pleaaure. ia nota constitutional latv. Ue ia of opinion that in this case he Ican uot allow thia officer to continue to act as hia adviser, and hia agent to execute the lawsi If he has the lawful power to remove him, uuder tbpae circumatancea, he givea thia order to General Thomaa. Now I do not view this as a pnrcly military order. The. , Borvice there invoked was a elvil service, but at thesame , time Senators will obaerve, that tho peraon who gave the' order ia Commander-in-Chief of the Army, The person to . whoni the order was given is the Adjutant-General of the^ Army. That the subject-matter ofthe order Teiates to the performance of senvice esseutial to carry on the luilitaryl Bcrvice, and therefore wheu'suoh an order was given by > the Coinmandor-in-Ghief to tha Adjutant-General respiict- ¦ ing a flubjcet of ttiia kiud, is it too much to say that there ' was invoked that sph'it of military obedience which eon- ' fltitutea the strcngtliof th'e service? I do not mean to say that it waa a mere military order, i or that General Thomas would have been aubjoct to court- martial for dtaobeyingit but 1 do aay thatthe Adjutant-' , General of She Army of the United StAtes jvas, in thd' iiffereaUDf the aervice, bound to accept the appointmenti- unleBB'hc saw or know that it waa unlawful. 1 do not know how the fact ia, certainly there ia no proof on th« subject but whan the dirf tinguished General ol the Army of the United States, on a previous occasion, accepted aaimUar appoIutnK'-nt it was under views of propriety and duty, Buchas thoae which I have now alluded to; and how and, whv ia it to be attributed to General 1 homaa that he waa i guiltFof designing to overthco^' the laws of the countrv, when he aimi^ly did what the (Seaeral of Hue Aemy had; Take a case in private life, if yon '^ease, and put it as ifltronglv as you please, in ordtr to tost the - qtrenion or conr idoliver to him this order to get poaaoaaion of thft property from him, would anybodyevor imagine that that wasa leoiiBpiracy? Does not every lawyer kUow uiat the moment' m rMPEACBtMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSOm you Introduce any transaction of ihi^^pdi ^^^ element of aclai^, if.^Tigh,lKeTery cnminal^j^Uen^ioQceaies, i , Thiawas a case of public^dltyiiOf fimbUcrjght; claimeq upou,c(^uatitutional{«roui^d't^nd UPpnt^UiDtiDi^'pretatsou of the law which haa beenvgf,ven,tBit,,by the iaw;-jnak,erB themaelyea. Howtben, I %gaiin ask, can the JPresident of the L'nited Statea, under suph circumstauceft„ibe. looked upbi^ by, anybody as guilty, of conspiracy uud**r ^bia act.. These articles say that the conspiracy between the Presi dent and General Thoma§ wa^ to employ ibrcewthreats and intiiuldatioua, Whatiheypiiove againstthe President is that he issued this order. , They,prov,e tfeat and that alone. Now, in thp face of these ordera, there ia no apology for the assertion that it was the design of the President that anj^body.'.at any time, should tiae force, threats, or intimi dation. Thcorderisto Mr. Stanton to deliver up posses- 6ion ; the order iato General Thomas to receive pOSsessIpU from Mr. Stanton when delivered up. Noforco iaaasigiled f to him; no, authority ia givenhimto apply foiwe m any- direction whatevery there is not only rio expre^Biautho- rity.ibut there is^no implication of authority to apply for or. obtain oF uae knythingbut ithe order which was given to him; and we shaU otter' proof that theiPrefiident, frora^ the firet, h«d indicated (Simply, a desire to test thequeBtiou bj 'lawi 'and this waa the whole of it. , ¦ t , ¦ t We shall fehow you ^hat advice the President' r^cefve^ bn this subject^ whatrviews IJewitevtaihod; 'i*i'hlat>5e'Wtr Bis counsel aiM advisers entertaiUfcd. But, of cbl^i•'sfe;l^'iB¦ ^bt my proviUce now tp c6mnionb upon the evideface. ¦ The evidence must be first adduced, an^th^U it will be time ttf comment ilpon it, The* Other 'two coue'^iracy articled will' require very little observation from n^e, because they make' mo 'iieV allegations of' facts ¦ whioh are not in the fourth'and Blxth ai'ticles, to which I at first adverted, the (Ally distinction between thcmaud the others belrw that tbev are not founded upon the Cortspiracy act oi 1861. T/hey Birapl v allege aif nnla^t^'ful OOn.'piracy,' and leave the' matter therp. They do uot'allege euthoient facts to, briug| the CjJee Within the' act oflSHl^ In other worda, tHe:^'do' not ftllfcge' force, threatS'OC'intimidatlon. ¦- -^.^ ' I shall detain the' .Senate fbr ft feW ^olrients on the hintli gticle. Ti-hich is tlie o^fe relating toihe'cooversation Pith efiofM -Eraory. The meaniiig orthftrarticleas I read it iB,tJiat the, HreMdtent brought GCiieraiTluiory before, hira self as Comniander-in-Ohief ofl the Array,' for the purpose of instructing him to destroy the law. With an iutent to' induce General Emory to disobey, aud with an inteht to enable himsi'lf unla whiUy, and by the use of military force, through Generjil Rinory, to* prevent Mr. Stanton from -con-' tinuirtg to hold the office. Now;T submit 'tbat lu the iirat jilacd, it apptate3 had brousht'the.'commandor of troops In VVaKhingtdn there for that pufpoaeiblit becausie' having brought hira there for another ^rpo-te. the'' com manding general introduced tfieaubject and conversed' upon it, and gave the Pre=id(»rit his- vio\VS. ' JU the next plaCe, having had his attention called to thC act of Congresp, aud the order under' it, th6 President bx- fres^sed perponally the same opinion to Gfefi'eral Eui^ry as ehad previously publlely'expi'osped to Congrees- itself, atthe time when the act w fis ' slBne^d by him:. It iafouna: iu his answer ou the thirty-second' 'page'of th'e ¦oflieiil re- ' port of tiieae < pi bceedittfia;^ what thiat'Opinion wan. He cpnsidered that that provi^ou of the law interfered witih-i maconatitiitionalrightas theiCoraraaudier4nrChief of thei Army, and thatia what he; aaid to General Eraory. There. ienot even & probable eause to believe that he paid it for, ain,V other than the natural and evident reason that Gen.. Eraory had .infroducedi the' aubject.i He naked leave to call the President's attention f them ;£B.anu09iudto,'1ne argu: mentof the nonorable,managerwha«)lQenQarihia case .fur . the prpsecution. and another' waB i wj-itton, by oaoiof tht.'-i Honorable mauagcraj outhe prQcefidbigqtiu tne? Hoiise pt Repr^sGntatires on the ocoariouvOfi .tha first iatteinpt/^^tt^ ¦ impeach the Pretidctrt and there haVo baenothftratwnt- t£n' and .publiahed by loaruedr parties touching tliiBBubject. ^ I4it)nflt propose to detain thp Senate with anyof these procedontn drawn from the middle ages. The fraihera of Dur€QU»titatioa were equallVi as farailiar with them as the perBOBi whp)drew up theae diBBertataons. andthe- framers of our Cpmi^itiition, aa I cqucejyeyhiw! drawnfromthema (lessen Jwhioh they ejnbodied mthei); work, and I propose therefoBe. instead of|tbe reaearoh frojn the pi:eoed*?ntis, which weremade in the times of thellaii- tageuets, the, Tudora, and the Stuarts, and which ihaye been repeated Bince to comci much nearer home, and /seo what the: proviaiona of the Conatitution of the Umtsd States.are bearing upon thiflqneatiomi, ¦^,. '¦ '-¦ ¦ , ¦ / My firet proposition ia that when the ConatitutiPO' speakB of ireaaon and bribery, and other high crimes arq4 mifldfc raeanprs, it refers to and includes only high criminal ofT fonses against the United States— ag»iu*t aonrt law of the United Statea exiiiting wheu the acts complMUed of were coiuraiUed— and I say that that ia plainly to be mfen-ed from each and every provision of the Constitution on the subject .Nobody will deny that treason and bribery .are high criraes agvinst the United Stl»te^ made auch, by the favvBof the United States, a^d wMchthftframcrfl of tbe Conatitution knew muft bo provided foriu the laws, be- Ci^U-ie these are high criraea which Btrik^ at th& existence o^ihe government. < -iNoWj whatis. meant by '"other high orimeB and raisde- raeanort?" ,Nos^t'^ asocies. They are high crimea and miademeanore, ao high that they belong in the same cpift- pany, with-treaeon and bribery. Thdt is clear in the face of the CqnflHtution. There can beno crime, no misde* meanor, "Frathput a law of eome kind, writteuor unwritten, expressed or implied. There must be Bprne law, ;ofcherwMo there is no crirae. My imprfisaiou of it is-that high criraea and mipdemeahofsmieaUiOffenBes against tbe. lawa ofthe UnitedStates,! . ., ¦ . l ¦ • > ' ¦. > , , '¦ ¦,,Lfit me aee, if {.the Conatitut^euha^ .not.in aubataiue atated ao. The fii"at clause of 'the second, section ^t ttie seDpnd.artiole of the Conatitution p^s.-th^t. ,the , Presidoat sfiflU ih^ve , po,wer to grant ueprjevep and pardyiffl for oIlensepiagainBtthe United States, except iu cases of unr peapnineut.. Offenses agaiuntric -would . mplude < cases of mipeachment and raight bepard-oned by th© .Presideutu they were not excepted by the Constitution. ThBae,;ja!«s of impeachment according to the'expreflsed decla.?Mion of Che Conatitution itself, «rp cages of offenae againt^t the United Statea. Still the learnrd raanager jSMT" that,thi«i( a court, and that whatever may be toe qharRcter of the proaecution, it is bound byuol^aw, . .WhaVjtheu, was the understanding ofthe fathers on this aubject? , , i Mr. BUTUEffc-Pardoji me, sir. I said bound byno com mon or atatute laTy. ' ¦ \ ¦ Mr. CURTIS proeeeded to read some authoritiea from law books, and then said:— Another poaition to whieb I deeire the attenjtion of the Senate, ia that there is enough vp^itteu ip the Constitution to prove that thja ia a coiirtiB which a trial ia now toeing carried on. The Senate of the , UnitedStates, says the Con?ititution, ahall have^he Bole powerto try all impeachments. Where the President ib tcled the Chief j ustice shall preside. It «l#o .provides thai . the trial of all criraea, except in cases of impeachiBBOt, ahall be by a jury. Thjs, then, is ihp trlml of a crime,, You are the triers, presided .ovqr bv^iHie Chief Justice ofthe United States, and ou the express wqrd of the CqnBEitu- tion. - ( ' There Is also, according to ita express word, to be. an no- q duty of the judges. I Bubmit then, 8enatoi-s, that this view of the duties and.powefs of this body , cannot be eutoi-tainod ; but the attempt made by the Honorable , managera to i obtain conviction, on. this tenth artrcle, ^is admitted with ao much peculiarity ; ihat I think it ia theduty of the counsel for thePrcti- dent to advert to it.. The first eight articles' 'are framed upion the allegation that the President broke a law. I sup- nose the honorable manager did not intend to carry thia ao far aa to say that unless you find that the Preaident did in tentionally breaka law, those articles are sustained ; tUere- foi;c,,tht3r«mustbe alaw^ and the very gist of the charge is, tiiat he broke a law. You raimt find that a law existed — ^you m,UBt construe it jbud apply it tp ,thia,cnso.; you must find a crlnilnal intention ou hia part to break a law, before hecan be found guilty on these articles. ¦ But when we oome to th)8 t&nth artlejCi i^retjud that it stands on no law at all, but is attended with some extraordinary pccuLiarl- tie«. , 1^ The complaint ic that the President < mad& speechea agaiuat Congress. The true^ Btatement ' could be much xnoi;e restricted than that : for, although Iu those speeches the Preaident uBcd" the word "Con.^rcas." undoubtedly he didppt m^n the eptire constitutional body, organized uhdbrthe Constitution of the United States. Ho meant tiie, dominant majority. Everybody, so understood it; everybpdy must have so understood it. But ttie coraplaint ia that he raade apeeches againat this whole^gDvernment, against Congreas. WeU, who are tho grand jurors in tliis «a8ti? One ^f the partiea, the complainauta. ' And who are triers? iTie other coraplaiufl-ut Now, I think there is aoiiic incongruity in this. I think there is some reaaon for pausing before taking any furt:;or .strides in this direction. Tho nonorable House of Rciire- Bent'itives .s^hd theiraanagcra here to take notice of what? That the Houpe of Eeprqntativea has erected itself into a ^hool of manners and , selecting fr-om ita ranks these guu- tlemen, whom it docma most competent by precept and eXaiuplo, tq teach decorum of Bpceoh, it deeli'cs. thejudg ment of this bijdy as to whether thn President ofthe tjnited States has not boon guilty of indvcorum; whether he hiis ^oken iraproperly, tor i Considering the nature o|^ur govemment ; couBidering the experience which we tmve gone, through on that sub- jcct that; is apretty lofty claim. Jf you >go back ito the time of the Plantagenets and peek for precedentB there, Vou will not find that so lofty aiclaim as that waa 'raade. I Jjogloaveto read from two statutes,, one from UI Edward, chap. 1,34, and the other from II'Richard, chap. 2, 1. The atatute of Edward the Firat after a preamble, enacts that "from henceforth no one be so hardy to tell or publish any falae newa, or tales wherebv discord or occa- glon of dlsoord or ,.Blandpr may grow between the King and his people, or the ; great : men of the realm, and he that doeth, .ehall bo taken aad kept in till he he shall have been bcought intocouut The.statute of Richard H refers to "dealers", ip false news «nd iu horrible and false lies againat dukes, prmces, earla and otheif nobles and great men of the realm, and .also tlie chautfellor, trea surer, clerk of the privy seals, tho judges aUdother great gfflcefs^of therealm,,Bo thattheSenatort w'ai:ioe,eved'iu those diBtaht times, those highofficersandibadieB were ndt Mfo against hqiTible and falap liea^ AudH-AvipbeTeinem- ro)r6d that in the course of our owu expcrlcricc, during th'o far with Francej and updcr tfie Administratiou.of Mr. dama, an attempt , waa made to check, not freedom of stwech, but freedora of writing— an atterapt which ia stamped in the opinion of poeterity with the^ ni^ue df the Sedition law, feuators ^iU find tbat althfough it applied only, to vrrit^ 1 te'n libels, it contained an expr'eas section that the truth of the libel-might lae given in evidence. ThatSVas a law, as Senators kuow, making it penal, by wri'tiin publications, tq excite hatred or contempt of the govermnent or of Cod- greaa. I ¦will'vead, tho eecond p.tfon'. Tt cnicta that if any peraon shall write, rrint. Utter ur publish, or shall cause or procure to bc written, uttered or published, er shall knoWiogiy'and vvilliuely aasist or aidT in wrifJ- in.2, printiuK, uttering, or piibli.^hiug any false^ acan- daloua' writmg agaiuat the Governraent of the United States, or either HoirSie of the eople, can only ci&,de,terminedbyia fifee examination thereof^ and ' a free.'c6ran>'uuicatiou, among the people thereon. ' ' "Fourth. Whchever it may haye actually harpeuod that proceedings of this sort are chargable on all pr either of the branches of the government it la the duty, as \Vell as the right of IntelligfetCt and faithful citizens, to diacuss and proraulgate thera freely, aa jwell ap to control them by the censorship of the vwphh opinion, aa to prpinote,^ remedy, according tothertilBs ofthe Cofastitution; anditcaumot be avoided, thai; those who are t6 apply the remedy muflt feel in some- degr^ee a contempt or hatred against the transgreeaing party,'* ,„',,. Theae observationa pf Mr. Madison were made.iU refer- etice to 'the freedom of the press. There were two Views entertained at the time wnen the Sedition laws were pfeissed conceming the powers of CougrosB on that subject One view was that when the' Conatitution epoke'oithe freedom of the preaBf it referred to tlie common law de finition to ascertain what that freedom might be. Thjrt was the feeling in part ^yhich Mr. MadiBon waa'tioii'trovbrt- irtein one brthA^asaages' iVhich I haye read. " .,Theoth6il^ie>^>wafl,'tha(tl the^'«6mmoti Uw definition 11(2 .JMPBACHMENy iOF ANDREW JOHNSON. should not be followed, and, that the freedom provided for uythe Constitu tloil,' aofar as tfie. action' !df(^hgreas was poncemed, ^as an absolute freedom ; but no one ever .imagined that fi-eedom of speech,, in contradistinction to written libel,, cyUld. he constrained by law of Congreaa, for .¦Ivhetheryou treated tl^e prohibition ih |the Conatitution aa absolute in itselftfOr whether you refer to the common lawfo;^ the definition df its limits and meaning, the result will be the same. U^der the* common law -pb. man was . ever punished criminally for spokeii words. If he slander his neighbor he murtt tnake good the injury to hia neighboi- in dainages, , but theroia no such thing at common lan- as an indictment for apoKen words ; so that this prohibition io the Constitution ugainst aiiy legialation by Congreas, in reatraint of the freedom of speech, Ib necessarily an absolute prohibition. Therefore this is a case not only where there ia .po.law made Prior to the act to punish the act but it is a caae where Congress ia expressly prohibited from making any law to operate on the future. What IS tho law to bc? Is it to be derived, as the man ager iraagined It should be, from the will or sense of pro priety or oxpediency of each Senator? The only rule, hp BayB, which can be properly applied ia, that we must re quire the speaker to speak properly. Now; who are to be tlie judijes whether he speaka properly? In thia case thev 'aife to be the Senate of the Uuited States, on presen tation , of the Houae of Reprq'acutativesof the united State'si and Ihatis supposed to be tfie freedora of the speech Becurod ! by the absol uto prohibition of the Constitution. | That la the eaino freedom of speech. Senators, in conse quence of ivhich thouaanda of meu were brought to the scaffold under Tudors and Stuarts.-. ^That ia the same free dom of speech which caused thousaiids of heads of men ahd women to fall from the guillotine in France. That is the Barac freedora of speech whijh has caused in our day more tlian once 'harder to relgu in Warsaw." Is tJiat the freedom bf speech intended tobe secured by our. Con*- stitution, that a man muBt speak propei^ lh the opinion of hia judgea? Mr. Chief Juatice and Senatora, I will detain, you but a very short time with a few obaorvationB concerning thu eleventh article. They will be very few, for the reason that the eleveuth article, aa I understand it contaiaa fiothiug new that needs notice frora rae. It appeara by he official copt of the articles, which is before ua. that the tenth and eleventh articlea were drafted at a later period than the preceding nine articles. I suppoae that fhe honorable managera, Rooking over the vrork they had already performed, and not feeling perfectly satiafied to leave tne matter in the shape in which it then stood, came ^ the concluaion to adopt thie eleventh .article, and they haVo coihpotmded it out of the materiais which they had previously worked up into othera. ' ' In the hrst place they said:— Hare a^re. apeeches, we must have something about them. Accordingly they begin with the allcgntioh that the Preaident at the Exectitive Man ton, on a certain occasion, made a speech, aud withoiit ^viog his'words, ther attribute to hira a certain intention to declare that thia was not a Congresa within the raeaning ofthe Constitution. All of which ie denied in his auswer, ind there ia no proof to aupport the allegatiou. The Preai deut. by his whole course of conduct uaB shown that he could entertain no 8u6h intention. He has sustieiined that fully in the answer, and I do not think it ueeessary to go into it here.' Then they come to the old subject of the removal of Mr. Stantou. They aay that the President made thia speech defying the corapetency of Congress to legislate with an indent and follo^ring up his intent, endeavored to remove Mr. Stanton, I have frecmeutly diacu8sed,that, and I will liot weary the attention of tho beifate by dm"S so a^ny fur ther. Then thoy aay tjiat he hiade this speech and followed up its intent by endeavoring toget.p6sseaaion ofthe mouejb appropriated tor the military aervioe of the United States, Cm that tbo, I have aaid all that I desire to aay. Then they aay he made it with the intent to obstruct what is called the law for the better government of ttie li^bel States, pasaed March 2, 1867, and iu support of that fiiey haye cfffored a telugrara from Governor Paraona to him, ahd ah atiawer to that telegrara, frora the Preaideut, 6n the subject of an araendment to the Constitutiou of the United States, ivhich telegrams were sent in January, befoje the March when this law cameinto-exiatence; and, BO. far A9 1 know, thia is thp ouly.proof they hare ofifered on this suDJect, , ' . Heave, therefore, iW^thtftfe remark, that article to the consideration of tfie S6na.te of the United States ; it uiust be unneceasat^ for me'to bay anything concerning the iqi-; portance of this case, npt only now, but i,u the future; it must be am>d,rcnt ta any one in anyway concerned in or con nected with thia'trial, that it ia and will bo, the moat con spicuous insti^hce, that ever has been or can ever be expof^t- ed to bo found of Atipferican, juatiqe or of American injus tice: of that lustici which Mr. Burli^o a^ya is the great policy of all civilize^' Stftbai of th^4^JUBtice which Is certain to be coudomiLed, which makea 6Ven the ,>viseBt,' man mad, and which, in the nxCd and un^altorable order of God'a providence, Ib sure to rdturn to plague the in-. ven tor, . , , , ' |. , >' ' Mr, Curtis here rCBu^^ed bin Q^at, and th^ Sena^. at 2^0. took a recess fojr :pfto'eU| mituftes.' ,^ ^. '., ', _. > .^tertbe re'c^aB ^aJoryGeneral L.>iThpmaB.waii called, f&nd took the ,Btand iU miUtairy cqatumeii JH&BPoke very flj^i^tly and readily^ but at. the aarae time with lodiBtiuot. , so, that tfienfoUowiug repoul of hiB tefltimouy is im- ectm many instances:— , .i „ .,, ., , ¦ ! , .• By Mr. STA-NBEBy, General ThomaB* wiU you Btajbei Ijl^^lpne ypU:have be«a the s^jri«e?, The.janavrar. which was lengthy, waa ' inaudible in tho gallery, save the concliidiug words:-^*'And have been in tbo army since that date.V Q. What is your prestent rank? A. I am bri^dier- general— raajor-general by brevet - •' a. What date does'your brevetbeUr? A. I really forget , Do you recollect the year? A. It was after I returned frora oneof my aouthern trips in 18&3. Q. Duriug.'the war? A. Yes, air; towards the close ofit Q. When'were you fiTit appointed Adjutant-General? A. The-7th of March, 1867. ' ¦ ' . ¦ Q. Gn what service were you duiingthe war generallv? Give ua an idea of ybur serviefe? A: Diirang the organiza tion of the War Department by Mr. Canieron I waa nomi- nated as 'Adjutant-General; i aecompahied him on hiB Western tour to Missouri and IKentubky ; he then re- turned, and after making the report he left and Mr. Stau ton was appointed;! remained iu the Department some time afrer Mr, Stanton was' appointed^ the first diit^I think, he placed mo' on from the' office, that ia, dne ofVie dutiea, he sent rae down on Jaraes liVer to liiake an ex change of prisoueiis of 'war, under the arrangemeut made ( 'by General Dix. Mr. BUTLER-What is the object of that? , Mr. STANBERY— To bring round thoreaiond why there was an interruption in the Adjutant-Genbral^s' poaition. ' Q. What was the next aervice? A. I went ti^ice o^'three times to Harrisburg to organize volunteoi's and tb correct some erroneous— not erroneous exactly-^-but in order fi ^ut skeleton regiraents together— once to Philadelphia iitia twice to Harrisburg; I waa sent to Harriaburg also' at thfe time that Lee was invading Maryland and Pennaylvaniai; afterwarda I waa aent down on the Mississippi river. ' Q. What was your duty tljere? A. My duty was threoj- fold :— First; to inspect the army Ux that part ot' the tipuntix Seeond— ' . . - . . , Mr. BUTLER— Would hot that appear better by the order? ¦ i* ' , ¦ Witneaa-^ hare it. Mr. STANBERY^BUggeBted that such a course would tend'to dicbty. ¦/¦ '¦ j , Mr. BUTLER— Very w^l; w« don'tavant to spend time. a. By Mr. STANBERY— What iV« your otlieranty? A. To take charge of negro i^gtmonts and organize thein. Q. Were y6u the first officer who brganiaed those negro renraonts? A; No, sir. - Q. Who was prior to you? A. I think General Butler organized them befiire'me. : Q. What number of regiraents ivere organised 'tmder yonr care? A. I organized lipwarda of* eighty thousand colored men; the particular number of regimehtB 1 don^ recollect. ' , ' '¦ -Q. Afterthis-service Was performed, what was'fhetWxt , apecial duty 3'ou were detailed on? A. I retumed n'h^i heardbf the siiii'ender of Lee; I then cnme to Washings ton; the next duty I entered upon w'as to make aninapec- tion of the Provost Maiyhal-General's ofiice throughout the'country— firat at Washington, and then at other cltle$. Qi What next? A. Then I was ordered to my last ser vice; I was ordered throughout the United States to ex amine the national cemeteries, nnder the law passed by Congress; that duty I have performed, but my report is hot yet in ; it Is very voluminous. ' ' ^ Q. These duties fall under youi*' -proper dntics aa Adju tant-General? A. Perfectly, and as inspeetorof the aimy, Q, This laat duty, the inspection of the cemeterie*. waa the ilast Bpeelal duty you' have beciii calledlipou to perform? A. "Yes, Bir. . ^ - m.. r O. When did you letura from havinff performed that last special duty# A, X came to Washington oU three dif ferent occasions the last tirae. Q. Wlien youp last service was tierfbrraed— the laat detail unon the national cemeteries— when did you return fro'nl that duty? A. I don^t thifik I am able to state the day^ but it was towards the close of that year, Q; You flay you had then completed this last detail 6T duty? A. Yes^ sir; I had'Visited eyery State where come* teries were made ; therd are only ono or' two Bmall onei Ihave not visit&d.< ; ' Q. You were then ready to make yohr report? A. Yei sir ; I am ready now, and"had Vnot been for interruptitme of this sort I should have madelt '''' Q. You have uot eince bc^n detailed upon any othei special service except about the War DepBirtmont? A. N(y, flir ; I was returned to the office. uoteifrom Genertd Grant ; I think it w'aa on the 13th. Q. Who had occupied year offieo during your abeence? A.Goueral Townsend, the Aaaistant Adjutant-General, with the rank of colonel. ' ' . r .' ^;Then you never lost your rank as Adintant-General? A. No, sir. Ispdko to the President about a month ago, Btatmg that when I- got through with thia buslnefls, I woula lik^to have charge of my offiee. Mr. BUTIiiER.>-I wish to object to any converaatipn be tween this peraon and th« President. ¦Mr- STANBB'RY-!-Thhi is aimply Mb application to th6 PresidonttoreBt6i'erhimtbhltdliti6s: i i Q. YouapWieddaofe or twice 'fbr reatoratiou? A. Yes, Bir. 1 , I . ¦" ' ¦ : . I ' " Q. Ou'thelSth of Aprilyou received the orderwhich 'VOU requested? A. It was not a note to me but to Goneru Grant. ^. TaroBtore you to your posltldn? A. Yes, air. "l. When after that did you see the President and what hegay'toyottV Ordld'Snow-me^in^few^a that' time IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 113 ?id the time you received your order on the . Slat? A. es, sir; ou one occasion I went over to tender my reaig. nation.. Q. After you had boen restored to your offlce? A. T^ob, air: the resignation Mr. S>tanton gave me. Q, Was that the first timo he apoke to you about taking pOsaeBsion of the War Office?, , Mr. @UTLBE-I object to that as leading, grosBly lead- ^ Waa that the first time that:he spoke, assuming that hebad spoken? Mr. STANBERY— We will como to It in another way. Q, Do you recoUect what occurred bn the 2Istbf Febru ary? A. Yea, Bir; I thought your qtteation was anterior to that. -..J Q. It was. What happened at the War Office on the 21st of February in regard to closing the office on the succeding day, the 223* A. About twelve o'clock I went up myself, and asked Mr. Stanton, then Secretary of War, it I should close the ofticq'the next day, the 23d of February, He di rected me to do it, and I sent a circular round to the dif ferent dep^ments. , . Q, Waa nbt that order made my you aa Adjutaut-Gene- talr A. Ye8,'Bir, byhlBprde^. Q. Was that before you had seen the President that day? A Yee sir, 6. what toolr place after yoa had issued that order? A, very aoon after I Issued it, I Received a note from Col, Bfoore, Private Secretary of the President that the Preaident wiahed to see me ; I immediately went over to the White House; saw the President; he came out of Ml library : he had two communications in his hand, .Q. He carae ont With two' papers in his haud? A. Yes, sir ; he handed them to Golonei Mooro to read; they were road to me ; one was addressed to Mr. Stanton dismlBiiing hlm^from ofiice, and directing him to turn over to me the booke, papers, ibe,, pertaining to the War Department ; the other waa addreaaed to myself, appointliig me Secre tary of War ad interim., and stating that Air, Stanton had been directed to transfer his ofilee to rae, Q. Waa that the first time you saw those papers or either of them? A. The first time. Q. You had no hand at all in writing those papers or dlctatiug them? A. Nothing whatever, 1 Mr. BUTLER—That ia rather leading again. Mr. STANBERY— What waa said by the President at that time to yoir, or by you t(> the Preaident? Mr. BUTLER— A single word, sir. Do you propose to put in evidence a conversation with the President ? Mr. STANBERY-I do. Mr. BUTLER— Between this party and the Preaident ? Mr. STANBEBY-I do. It wa^ at the time the letters were banded him by the Preaident Mr. BUTLER— I have no objections, Mr. STANBERY-What did he say? A. He said he was determined to support the Conatitution and the laws; he desired me to do tne Bame ; (great laughter) ; I told him I would : (laughter). ' <^ What further took place? A, He thon directed me toaelivcr this paper, addressed to Mr. Stanton, to him. Q, Did you then leavo? A, Tben I told him that I was gomg to take somebbdy out of my department with me to Bbe that I had delivered thera ; and I stated that I would take General Williams, Assistant Adjutant-General in my department. ^ , , ^ Ypu told the Preaident you would take him ^eng to witness the tranaaction? A. yes, air. Q. What did you do then? A. I then went over to the War Department and went into one of my roomaand told General Williama I wished him tb go with me ; I did not toll him for what purpose ; I did not tell him what for, but I t^d him to note what occurred; I thim went to the Sec retary's roora and handed him the first paper, which wa^ that, the paper addresNcd to him—" Q, What took plaice then : did'he read it? A. He got up ana said,, "good morning.' and I handed hira that paper and'heputlt down on the corner of his table and aat down, fljud' presently ho took it up a^d read it. He said, do you wish me to vacate the onice at once, or will you f^re me time to get my private property together?" I ^aid, •*act your pleafiurc." Q. Did he say what time he would reqidrof A, No, Bir; I didn't ask hira ; I then handed him the paj^er addresaed to me^ which ue read; he asked me to give hun a copy. Q. What did vou say? a. In the meantime General Grant came in, and I handed'it to him ; he asked if it was for him ; I said no, merelv for his informatlbn ; then I went down to my own room. ' Q. It ia below tnat of the Sw^etary? A. Below General acnrivcr's room. Q. On the lower floor? A. Yea. sir; acony was made whidi I certified as Secretary of War, ad interim. (Laugh- i«ri. I took that up and handed it to him ; he then said— *'l dou't know whether I will obey your in«tructions ;" he s^d there ; nothing more passed, and I lett. Qi. WaB General Grant there at the aecond intsrlew? A. AQ. sir, 'Q. Did General WtUiamB go np with you the second time? A. No. air. , ,, Q. What time of the day was this? A. I think it was abotit twelve when I went to see the Secretary, and after that I came do>vii to the President about oue o'clock, I suppose. , , Q, Immediately after you had written the order to closo thaofficev, A. Y%B. air. Q, Wa6 that aU that bccurred between you and the Sec- Stvry on the 3Ut? A. I think it Waa ; oh, pol uo i I was Ittking of the ^d. Q. What foUoWed? A. I went Into the other room, and I aaid that I should issue orders aa Secretary of War; he said that I should not, or that he would countermand them , and he turned round to Generals Schriver and Tovi nsend* who were in the room, and directed them uot to obey my orders as Secretary of War, Q. Was that on the 21st or 22d? A. The 22d; he wrote a note and handed it to rae. Q. Have yoil got that i:oto? A. I gave It to you, I think ; (Witness Bjearcues his pockebi) ; the note was dated the 9Ut. Mr. STANBERY produces a paper. Q. See if that is the paper, A. That ia It, air ; the body of it la not in Mr. StanJ tbn'B handwriting : ho tpok it out to General Townaend, a copy waa made, and Mr. Stauton signed it and handed It tome. . . . Q, Will you read it, if you please? * Mr, BUTLER aaid, "Wait a moment if you please," But so rapid was the witneas that he had read the date, &c., aud had got as far aa "Sir" before the hon; manager could btop him, araid general laughter. '^ After exaraination, Mr. BUTLER made no objection* aud the ivitncaa read the letter dated February 21, com manding him to abstain from ieauing any order other thiua. in his capacity as Adjutant-General of the Army, alguod by :^dwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, Q. Did ypu see the President after that interview? A. I did. . , Qi What took place?— Mr. BUTLER-;^-Stop a moment ; I object now, Mr. Pre. sident and Sen'ators, to the conversation betweeU'the Pr&-. aidentand General Thomas after thia tirae. Iwoqldnot object, as yoii will observe, to any ordera or directions which the President gave or any converaation had be tween the President and General Thomas at the time of jsBuing tho'comraiaaion ; but now the coraraission haa hoch iaaued, the dcraaud haa been made, it has been refused; the peremptory order to General Thomas, to mind his own busineaa and to keep out of the War Oti5ce, haa been put iu evidence. Now, supppBC the President by talking to G«nerf4 Thomas, or General Thomas by talking to the Presidont, confirma his own declarations for the purpoae of raaking evidence in favor of himself. The Senate has already ruled by solemn vote, in conaequence, I believe, of a dicislon of tlie presiding otficer, that there was auch evidence of criminal intent between theae partiea aa to allow ua to put in the acta of either to bear on the other, but I challenge any authority, that can be ahown anywhere, that where wd are trying a man for an act before any tribunal, whethei; a judicial conrt or auy other body of trial, I challenge anybody, I aay, tu ahow that teBtimony can be given of what the respondent aaid in his own behalf, especially to hia servant, or a fortiori to his co-conspirators, the con- splracy being presumed. Can it be that the President can! call up any otncer of the anhy, and, by talking to him afte^ the act he has done, justify the act? Tho act that we complain of, waa the removal of Stanton, and the ap^ pointment of Thoraas, that haa been doue— that ia, if he can be reraoved at all. I underatand the argument just presented to us by thv' Ipamed counsel to be that, "even afttrr having delivered nie argument," there was no removal at all, and no ap ' pblntmeut at all. If that is the case, there has not bo#u apy thing at all done, and we raay aa well stop here, Bufr"^ the point of hia argument, to wit, that the only power of removal remained in the Pt-esident, or in the President and: . the Senate, If that be true, then afi that it wanted to be quite right depended on Mr, Stanton's legs In walking out, because everything had heen done but that. We inaist tnatthere was a removal; that there was an appointment, and that is the act which is being Inquired about, whatever the chameter pf that actia, be it better Pr Worse. But after that act I say that General Thomas cannot raake evidence by talking to the President nor can the President by talking tb ThomM. Even suppoae that tbe act waa as innocent a-thing as a conspiracy to get up a lawsuit then, a,{ter the conapiracy had taken place, und had eventuated iu the aet they could not put in their declarations. There ia not much evidence of such a conapiracy, becauae I auppoae if the President conspired with anybody to get up a lawsuit he conspired with his Attorney-General, and not with his Adjutant- Gener.il. , ' ¦ But even a thing so innocent as that could notafter it was done, have been araeliorated, the time altered or changed by the declarations of the partiea, one for the other ; ' therefore, a ivniine^'l muat object, and I need not go any further now thau objecting to ariy evidence of what the President aav«f, which ia not a part of the thing done, a pai-t of the "resgeataj," or any converaation which toofe place .after the act took place. Mr. STANBERY-Mr, Chief JnsUce, if I understand the caae, the gentleman supposes it to be now' the whole capp depends ou the removal of Stantou. Mr, BUTLER— I have not aaid any such thmg; I don't know what you nnaerstand. , -Mr, STANBERY— You say it atands between Stanton's commiasion and the order for his removal, and does your ujiderstauding stop there? Doea your case stop there? I agree that your case stops with the order, because I agree with the view taken by tho honorable manager that that did, in fact remove Stanton, If it did, it was a law that gave it that effect. There is no queation about a removal, merely, in effect- no question about an ouster by force here, but a question about a leg^l removal. I nnderstand the manager to Bay that that order, in his judgment, efiected a legal removal, and it waa nbt UeceBsary for Mr, Stanton's legs to remove him ept of oifiiCe. Ue was already out If Stauton is out 11^ IMPEACHMEIJT OF ANDltfeW JdH1^§'(i)l!!r. by tbe order, then it must be a legal of-der, making a legal removal, not a forcible illegal ouster. But, says the (earned ?iuanas«r, the tranPactioU ended fu giving the order and i"eceivmg the order. You are to have no testimony of what was said by the President ot General Thomas, exceptof^what was Baid just theu, be cause that waB the transaction— that was the resgestce. Does the learned gentleman forget his testiraony?— doea he forget how he attempted to make a case ?— does he for get what took place on all the evidence between the Pre sident and General Thomas?— not what we are going into, but what took place at night? Doea he forget the sort of race against the President not at the tirae when that or der was given, nbt at thb period of which wc are now talking, but at night, under his conspiracy counts? * ThegcntJeiuan has undertaken to give in evidence, that on the night of tiie 21et General Thoraas declared that he Wafl going to enter that office by force. That is tho mat ter to which our evidence ia now addressed; that the con spiracy between Thomas and the President should be exe* cutedby force, intimidation aud threats; and to prove that, what has he got? The declarations of General Thomas not made under oath as we propose to have thera made now, but his declaratioUB not made under oath, when the Preeident was present, and could contradict him. He has gone into all that to riiake a case againat the Pre sident of thia conspiracy, and not merely that but on the &d again, and asfar back aa the Sth of March, at the Pre- S "dent's levee, brings a witneaa h'^re with the eyes of.aU ijiryland upon him. Mr. BUTLER and Senator JOHNSON, slmultaneoualy — ^Delaware, He proves by that witness, or thinks He prpves, that on that night General Thomas alao , made a dcc}aratlon in volving the President as aparty,|to a conspiracy to keep Mr. Stanton oufof office, i . , Well, now, how arc we to defend ouraelves against these charges? How i« the President ro defend hiraself agaiust It but by calling General Thomas? Is General Tiionias inipeached here as a conspirator, so that his mouth Ib shut iu regard to thp transaction? Not at all. He Is brought here aa a witness. What bettor evidence ean we, have to contradict thia conspiracy than one of the cbn- Mratprs? For if Thomas did not conspire tho President dad not combine, I w ish to show that when he received that order he gave Do orders and gave no instructions to use, and that at die subsequent day after Thoraaa returned and told him that Stantou refused to give up, that the President gave no directions and entered iuto ho conspiracy ; Und that oonsequeutly, on the night of the Slst, wheu General Thomas spoke of hia own intentions he had no authority to speak for the Preaident ',Mr. BUTLER— I think I muat have made inypelf very nearly understood if what I, said has been fairly met or at tempted to be met by the learned counsel. This Is my ob- Kwtiou— notthat he shall not prove^by Gi*neral Thomaa fliat he did uot aay what lie did say to Mr. Burleiph, He will be a bold mau to aay that. He did not say it how ever ; not that they ahall not prove that he did not say what "he did say tq Mr. Karsener, but the proposition I make is a legal propoaition, , and it has not neen met or touched by the argument. Tho counsel do not pretend to ^ow that ¦(Sen. Thornas did not aay to Mr, Burleigh :— "We are.about to use force," by proving what waa said between General Thomas and tjhe President. We say that the President cannot put in nis declaration, and X shall challenge a law-book— coraraon. parliaraentary, statutory or conatitutional law, or a law nnto yoursdvea— anj' law. We raeet no auch proposition. Tell me of a case whero, after we show that a raan has done ^an act which act ia coraplained of, and where he is OU trial for that act, can bring hia servant or hia co-cou- flpirator and show what he said to hira, in order to his justification. What thief could not defend hiinself by that means? , Showing conversatioua the one for the Other, and the other, for the oue, after the act was done. ' Now it is said -and I hope this case will not bo carried on by sorae little snapcatcn of a word— that I aaid that there was a reraoval, and therefore I must have said that ft was a legal reraoval. I say tfiis— there never was a legal removal of Mr. Stariton.' There was ati act of rfr- moval, ao far as the President of the United Stateii could exercise tho power— so far as ho could do If— so far as he itfCL'imlually responsible for it— so far as he must be held to overy intendment of the. couBftquouees of it aa much as though Btaqton had gone out inobedience to It; becauffc, 1^. President, he ia tne (Jhief Executive, he has tl^e array and navy, he iiiaa. Usupd an ordar to an officer of thia army to take posBeaflion, President." Doyoudothia, or do you do that. But my propoBitlou is that they cahd'ot put iu what tho President said to General Thomaa, and -wliat General Thomas aaid to the Presidout after he h:^d fif vea th* order. , The leamed cdum«l aays :— Why. these gentlemen mauar, gers have put iu what G}«nenU ThomaB said all alopg ; we nudei-stand that ao.wo can; and what the, President Baid all along, Iv ia the oommpno«t thing Iq all courta of justice where Iharo seen caaea tried, and where I ,have not— tho bosks are ouo wav— it ii tjie comMonest thing lu tho wprld to put In the converBaUon of a criihenal made drtWn to the day of trial, made the moment the officer bringfl him id puts him into the doek; but yrbo ever heard ofa case brmging what he said to his aocomplioe after the act ¦\a do^e/be the act w hat it may. , . , ;t is said we must aUowtbem ta p4it wils act la becattso ^i the President cannot defend himaelf tftJierwld^." ^^ bais all tho facts to defend hiiii«elf Whatlmea'n tosayis that he ahan't defend biuiBelf byword of mouth; I do not* claim that the Conspiracy Was iriadebetWeeii the 2lBt of February and the 7th of March. 1 claim that it waa madft before that tirae. I expect. to be able before we get througii to convince everybody clad of it, I.Bay Innd cer tain teatiraony of it between thcBetwo datcB, and I'do not object to their asking General ThomaB what he said to Mr. Burleigh, or what he SfiidtofailybOdy.' I have put m what he said about it, but ^a to putting fti' the Preaidcnt's declaration after the time, I do not w^t any more of theae exceptions* We .have simple, ordfera given by the PreBident to his subordinate. It is a y^ry armless thing, quite iu the common course, given to hifti with a flpurieh of trumpets- **I want you to suftain the Constltutionand the laws," and the officer gaya, "I Shafi eustain the Constitutiou and the laws." Don't we und^p stand what that is? Itis a declaration made forthcp'uiv poae of evidence. Do£S he ever say to any officer ^ J^e coramlsaiona hira, "Now, I want you to suatain the Co^^ stitution and tho lawa," aud then solemnly that office saya. ''I will sustain tho Constitution and the laws.'' ,', .Why WOB it done in .this cafee? Done fof the purpoeacif blinding whatever court that should try the 6ase, Inbrd&r that it might bc put in as an exemplification. Oh, I don*t mean to do anything but to sustain the Constitution an^ the laws, aud I said so at the time. Pnt him out of tho usual and ordinary courae of things, and It is to prove anj number of theae declarations, gojt up aud rtianufactured by this crimiual at the time wheu he was going to cocfimit tho crime ;.an4 after 0e crime was'icoaimiited, then, to give him the opporttinity of manufacturing testimpnyf, never was hoard pf in any cpurt of justice. Mr. EVARTS— Mr. Chief Justice, if the crimed aa itia called,'of tho Presidentof the.United State?, waa cont-i plete when this written order waa handed by hira to Gczl-, fcral Tlmmaa, aUdxeeeived by General Thomas, why havB' the managers occupiedyour attention with other and late*\ procpedingB, in this belief. In the removal of Mr, Stanterii the firet the only act in regard to that removal which the managers introduce, was of the twenty-second, and the presentation of General Thomas, there and the^i, with the, purpose, as it waa said, of forcibly ejecting Mr. Stanton Erom the office of Secretary of War. That is the act : that is the fact; that is tho resgestc&vd- Which they standi and it was bythe combination ofthe Delegate nrom Dacota invited to attona and take part itL that act that the force was sought to be brought iuto thia ca^e of the intention ofthe Preaident of tho United States, and then the evidence connecting the Intcntibu of the President of the United States with this act. This facfc this re^estoe of the 22d, was drawn from tho hearsaly-#fr dence of what General Thomas had said and by ple&ef^of the raanagers that they would convict the Presjident with it And now, in the presence of this coui^ol' juatice, and in the Senato of the United StateSi the 'managers of the Houae of Rcprepcntativesi spetfkjbg ' iu the namo of all tho people of Che Uuited .States, say that when we aeek to show wnat did occur between tho Preai dent and Geutiral Thomas, up to the timo of the only .act and fact, they Introduce by hearsay evidence of ^General Thomas* stateraents of What hs meant to do, . • They have sought to Implicate thePresident in thefh- tent to cahso force to be used, by the pledge that they would connect the President with it. And wo offer the' evidence that we aaid in the first instanee sliould haVe been brought here, under oath of this agaont or actot him self, to prove in what connection the President ivaa, when it has been let in as secondary evidence ; and wo are uit' dertaking to show by the oath ofthe actor, the agent, the oificer, what roally occurred between the President ofthe United Statea aud himEelf, Thev aay that is of no cona^' quence ; that is ho part of the reS gesvce;' th&t is no part pf tne evidence Bhowing what the relation between the pni^ ties Wae. ' \ ' ' *¦ Why, Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, If the learned mawgershad objected that General Thomaa wa^not-'to be received Aa a witness Irtcanse he was a co-Conspii^ftJ^, Bome of thpso, observations of the leaftaod manag.'ra InkHt havesora'e application.' But that i^ iibt the topic, thirf is not the claim which tho learned managera have pj-oaonted tp your notljCe. It is that General Thomas, being a compe tent, wlti^eaH to speak the wuth here aa to whatevei' la pftr. tinent to this case, is not to bb peirftiittoa-to saynvhatwaS. the agency, what was the instnictioh, -what was the coB- cqiuitant.qbaervatipn pf the President of tfiti United StatW at 'every intirviow whicli they have given as cVidunce. The managera have giren eridence as to whiii; Gohenil'' Thomas had been empowered to do or to say by thd 'ProiJ- deht, which makea his statcmerit pertinr-uttrfcorariiilW PreBident. Nowif they can show ;thrpush GonerU™,^ ufas, by hearsay, what they claim 'isto implicate the Fra* sident lu latent then We can certaiiay prove by General 'lliOmaa up to any'dato in refehmcc to wtSch ovirienfcfe hka. been offered, all that did occur between the Preaident ind hSraaclf. '-.!-¦ , >/ ¦ , Ti r . rrtJ^o^^S??^!;^ ^^P^^^^f'^ '^« ^J^^ ^? t*»9 managers^ The Sonfttdrd WiUnpticb that an (ittfeifipl isfaow inade.ftl theflWttime in-this trial, and. I may say, the first timo lU any tribunal of justiCD iri' thin (ifliiHtrf , 1*^ rdspbCtablff cotin^l, to introduce .lutho defense of an ooctised crilhlnar his own declai-atlons, tt(ado^«&r^the fact The 'tlhie hiia nptxptcome„eonat,oi:s, for theJCuUdiacitaiion of tlii* a"*^' tion whether it waa a. crime for :M'dPew Johnson, with intent to violate the Tenare df Ofedb Act to iwuo aa order for tbe rempvol of Mr. S^tonton frbin the War D&" p&rtmokit, not oiUy IxTcootraTtfutibtt'Of tbe atft, btitU'def- IM-PEAGHMENT. OF AINDREW JOHNSON. 1115 ^anceof theactof the. 8enato,^¦then)had on the suspenaion Under the same law, by the sarae Secretary. i. For nii-^clf, I stand ready tO"-makfl the 'ch^llohge in thia stage of the caae, to say that if the Teuure of Oifice act ia itp jDo considered a valid act, the attempt to removoiMr. iStanton is itself a mlBdcmeonor, uotsimplvat the common' law, but by the laws of the United States. 1 am not sur- prieod that^that utterance .wae made here at thia Bt«ite df! the case, after the counsel for tfaodetcnse had closed' his: jhrgumcnt tmd vehturod to declare tbat ^ au attempt to ' commit a mii'dcraeanor, made such bythe law, was net .itself 'a crime consummated by the very atterapt, and was :jZiot of itself .a utisdomea^or, >. . .> > i The only question before the Senate jia, whether' it is ..Competcntifor an accused criminal, high or low, after the faet charged, to raake evidence ' for hiraself by his own de- -^elarationa itb a. co-aonBpirator,'or to anybody el-ie. fhe •ttile has been 'settled in evei^'caaeithat ever has bpftu tried heretofore, that In the general law of evidence appointed tfor^a coramou; law prcctteding cc^'erxthCKe 'proceedingc. Jf there is au exception to be found to that, In trials of tbiakind. Ichallongoitsproductlwn', ^ . ' ' The Chief JHistafoe'saidhe wbitld submit the querftioif to the Senate, and the yeas and nays bavin; been ordered tiie quoBtiOu wastakeit upon alloWibg the question to be ' ^ut, and decldud in the atSirmative. Yeas, 41 ; naye, 10— as follows:-!- ¦¦ . ¦' ,1 ¦',.'¦ : . "¦; ; ii^ Y^Ae.—Mesarai, •Anthony, ., 'Bayard, Buckalew* Cattel,!.^ Cole, Conkling. Corbett, Davia, Dixon, Doolittle, Ed«arde,, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hfen-' derson, Hendricki),' Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan,! (MorriU (^Ce.V Morrill (Vt), Morton, Norton, Patterson (N,! , H.), PalteraQni(Teiin,), Pomeroy, Roas, Sherman, Sprague, gtflwart Sumner,3jipton. Triinihull, Vau Winkle, Viekers, ;Willey*.WiUi!«raBiWv-il8nn aud Yatea-U3. Nays,— Messrs. Caraeron, Ohaudler, . CoUnesB; Cragin, 'firako^i Haitian, Ho ware, Nye, Ramsey and Thai' erJ-lO. \ Bothe queation Waspiit to the witness an' foll6wa:-i- • Q. What occurred betweoni the Presiddnt and yburaelf , a the aist of February? A. E sfiatcd to this I Tesidont that I d delivered the communication, aud that he gave thia' ¦aaswer.; •..,.. i ; j. i ¦ " ¦' ' Q. Wtiat auswer? A. -The answer. "Do ^ou wish rae to '^rticate at once; or will you give mc time tn take' away ray private prCipbrtv?" andthat I answered "at your pleasure;" .1 then Btatud,' that after delivering tho copy of the letter to him, he said, 'T do uot know whether I will^ Obey your Instructions or resist them;" the President's answer was, .^*Very, wrcll, go oa and take charge of the office;' aU^ per form the duty ;" thatwas all that passed; this was im- ^Qedlately afier giving the aecond letter to Mi'. Stanton ; thenext.naornIng I waa arrested before I hftd my brenk- :UBt ; the oi^cer, at my req uest, accompanied me to see the ; President; I weut to the room where the. President Wn!«, ' jftnd stilted that I had beeu arrested, at whose suit L did Cot know, . ¦' ' -ciiJdEiJJUTIiER'.Cto.the witnesB).iJ-Stiapia 'moment.. i To the Chief Justice- Does the presiding otficer uuder- , Stand the.rirling of tho'Sehate! to itpply to what todk place 1toeneS£tdoy?< ' .¦ The C ' ief Justice— The Chief Justice- bo understaud^it MJ-.ISTANBERY (to witneM)-Goon. ' . ' «,'WitneaB--,Th6 Bresident said, ."Verv well; that isthe place I want it in the cvent;'^ llcadviBed me then to go to yout>^ again -ibterrnpted 'tho witness, and asked tho Chief JiUaiJiee whether that was within therules, ' Mr. STANiBERY-^It is a part of the' conspiracy. (Laugh- ¦ftWj , ,7,11 ..(::•- 1' -¦¦ ¦' Mr. BUTLER— I have no doubt of It. i (Laugbter.V .ijilr. STANBERY,.to .theivtitness-^id you,- go into the •ourt? A. I presented myself to Judge Cartter. ¦ .',>Q; What ha-ppened-thfenfi: ;MMr.jB.UTI.JER-I:obJGet '-1 _-- ^ j^oet ' Mr. stanbery; to witneaft-Were yonadmitted to bail ^ ¥5(H)U?..^,il< was then diachorged from custody; but thereiaon&j^olut whIchiLinish to'Btate;^ adraiaible; I aakcd the judge distinctly what that bail meaift. -. Mr.. BUT!LER«to witheS5!-"Stbp a.raluutei'-' '<'¦'¦•¦' /To the £%i£}fl¦Iluffice--^'^DoetllyaulI hcnCh allow fihat?t< Mr. STANTON to witncsa-^That Is another part of' the >^Be."/ Q.vHilTnflnng didlyoitreilmviuitlie^c?'. 'Aij X-snppose I waa there altogettor about an hour ; my friends came in .togive bail : I h*± nolMtfy withmwi not even my wife. (J. After you Vero admitted to bail, Mi^ S17ANBEIRY; (to. witnes3)-,'Fel7 well; what is the explanation yon wiah to make ? , . i i . / -^WitoB^»-raSkedithoi(FUhad.nothin^ to do with them'; that ia the poiut' !¦ wadted to -make.* (Laughter -^ tfie Court.) > ':i>' ¦ ; - ¦¦ ' 1' I ; Q. State when you next wenttci tho War Dlejlar-tment fhat day? A. I Weut i^ramediiately'to the Presidiuit's after giving bail, aud . stated tho faCts -to > Mm, He maide the same .answer— -.*Very iwoll,.- I wanted -to get It into the Gourta.'li I then .wont ta the War OtficoJ «ndi!o6nd tKe Qastcii'njiooi; locked j this waa on theSild; I asked'the mes- Bengor for the kejv and Jio tbid me thait ho hadn't it; I then Wentto.Mr. Staaton^s raom4^the.onovtfhich he occupies as on >*tffico— and fouadi-himi thecfs-'wlth'soia^'slk or bjght KcuUemon;aomoofthom I xucognlsad, and I underetood -that they were all members' of Congreas; thev were all mting; Itold the Secretary of War thatI carhe tb de.-uarid the oflice; he ref Ksi'd fn give it to me and ordered tUe to Wiy room as AajueaDt-General; I refuned to obby;^ I made ¦tho deraand a k-oond' and third 'time, and HViB Mill , reftiaed, and Mnduecd to go to inV oivn room ; Ke theo Biiid. "you can stand-there ay long aa vou' please;" 'I ¦left the- room and went info the office of General Shhrlveti and hnd'a chp.i ^vith him. as he is an old fritnd ; Mr. Stan ton followed rae in there, and Governor Moorhead, a jxieth- ibor^of- Congress from Pittaburg, Pa„ carae iu ; Mr. Stantdu told Governor Moorhead to' note the conversation, aod I think he took notes of it ata Side table; hi', asked nlo pretty much the same (fueations -as before, whether [ in- aiated on acting an Secretary of. War, and '.vhetlier T cLairaed the office?' I gave the direct answer, and there was 8 .mchttle chat between the Secretary of War and raystjtf. ' ¦ Q. Did Other lUombera'oif Cdrtfe^edB withdravv then? Tull UR what h.T,ppcnud between you and .the Secretary of War 'after thoy withdrew. A. I do not rfecollect what first oc curred, btit I -aid to hini, "the next time you have me a?- reited (fbr Ifonnd'it waaat hissuiti was arrested)- ' Mr. BUTLEH— I object to the converflatioo between th© Secretaryof 'War and General Thoraa* at a time which we have not put in. becaiiee we put in only tfie tirae when the other gentleraen were there, and this waa aomething ¦ which took place after they had withdrawn. The Chief Juatice—If it was imraediately afterwards, it was a part of the same conversation. 'Mr. BUTLEK— Doea General Thomaa say itwas the 'sarae cohvereation? WithesSr-M'". Stanton listened to me, and got talking in a very familiar raanner to me ; I said the' next tinie vftu 'liave me arrrtnted, please don't do it uutil 1 get tfomethi'^ to eat (Laughter) ; I hare had notHIhfr to eat or drink- to- 'dav (CtJntinued laitchter) ; he piit hirf Iftru^around ray'ileek, a«'he iiatd to do. In a farailiar raanincr* and riin his h^na throifgh my hair, and turne - arouud' to General SchriV^r and said, "dchrivcr. have'vou kot a bottle' hel-fi? bring'lt put" (Roars of laitghtei*); Schriver unlocked lilideakand took out 'a' Bikall vial ; the Socretary thim proposed vro Rhould have a spoonful, of iVhl-ky : Iraid I would liko a little; General ScIv?iverpoUred It out into a tumbler and divided it equally. ¦¦ ; Mr. STANBERY-Q. He^harrid'it then? A. Ho tocfe the glaBBea up this way (indicating); and mcaaured thera with hiB eye*; presently a mensenger carae in -vjch afml bottle of- whisky, and tho Cork Was drawn and he aU'dfl took a di-ink t6gother. -^ , * ¦ ' / '-u Q. Was that all the forde exhibited that day? A. That waa all. ' Q. Have you at ally time attempted to uec force to g6t int'rceident was irapea(;hed on the Md of Februaiy i but auppoce he had got up his case then? . , , Mr. EVARTS— We have a right to negative up_ to the point for which* you have riven any positive evidencb, which ia the 9th of March, ^ ' -' Mr. BUTLER--We have giVen ubevidonco as to what- Inetruetions Were given by thePreaident. We have giveu file evidence pf what Mr. Thomfta 8;lid, but if there i« an5*- ¦•thing In any rule of laW, this testimony cannot bo ad mitted.^ ' . Ml'. Et'ARTS— The point if anything, Mr. Chief Justice, ofl Svhich Mr. Karsener wets allowed toetate the interview 'between General Thomae iad himself, on the 9th of March was that General Thomas^ statement then made raight be held to, either froih aofnoHiin^' that had been prpved oh the part of the managers, or,fro^u aomething that would Ve fwved on' thW^art of the mai^'ftgers, n committal of tfie reBideat Now, oertaihlyj wilder the rulings, ai, well aa under the UM0a«ary principle's of law aud of jubtice, tho PreMdent*'iA entitled to a negative through tlie wit^o^s whb knoH's anything that has been prbved aa tO' what dc- 'ci»Vffia'beti^*eteh the President and thw witncs. •, ¦ Mr. BUTLER— I do not prpppee to argue aMy furthenpr to the 7th of March, after he wo* irapeached. ^ ^ - Mr. EVARTS said, the point ia that we negatively -cah show up to and including the date which liioy have given to evidence what they claim t» 'implicate the Hresidcnt that tho President had npt g^v^ any inBtructiqh8|to tise 'Mf^BU'^I>BB^Hbw does that prove that Gen. Thoinas did n'ot say so? ¦M>. EVARTS-^It only proves tua authority of the President, which M^the m,ain point^ M>. EVARTS-^It only proves that ho said it without tire The Chief Jurtice directed Mr. Stanbery to reduce his r^fon:e8; I have got thia con versation mixed Op, and cannot Deparate thora ; be then described the interWew with Mr. jtarpener at the Presi dent's levee on tho 9th of March, w^eu Karsener claimed acquaintance ; witnpas sa^d. I tried to get away from nim, but he tben oaidi-he^ was a Et^i^^^^i^n, and said th0 eyea of allDelawarearepnypu.and they expect yon to atand fast; I said certaiul.y,I will «taud firm; ne put thesame 'question a second tirae,'and then eaid :— Are 'you going to Kick this fellow Olit? and I said, "Ohl we'll kick hmi ¦ by.'" A.''Certamly,"piVT"but"i,did"uot"'mean any diareapect to <• C*«.^*.s»n*..ii.Y....;j:4. _..«;i:.i a1 V anil I -ora a vi^rv elfui . __I we'll kick him"out 1)y and by." " j, ,.- i- *« Q. Are you certain the kicking out oame from him nrst? Mr. Stantou at all ; 1 said it srailingly, and I was very glad ''io get away from him. . . , In cross-examination witness disclaimed anyunkino feelipg towards Mr. Stanton; Geueral Gran* had recom mended hia being retired,. but the President did not set .bimajiide. ,, ' . . ac • Q. Did vou ever ask Mr, Stanton to restoie you to office? A,^o, I did not, ¦ i ... „.,.,. *• Q. With the kind feeling you had to him all the tune didyouuotasltMr. Stanton to restore you to office? A. ^. With the kind feeling you had to him ell the time. why didyounotaskhim?! A, I knew perfectly well that my servicea on special buaineas was very maportaut,; 1 ,knew that Mr. Stanton said himgelf that I was- the only one that could do the work, and that he, therefore, Bent me ; I did not aak Mr. Stanton to restore me, becauae I dm not suppoae he wauted me in the office, although there waa no unkind feeling; the Preaident aent for rae on the 18th of . February, ttiree.days before I received the order; I never had an ihtlraatioOBvbefore the 18th that the President had anv, idea of making rae Secretary of War. Mr, BUTLEK— Did you not swear > before the committee thatyou had a previous Intimation? A. I afterwarda Kuadc a correction in that paper. > i Mr. BUTLER— Excuse me, I did uot ask you about cor rections, but what you swore to? A. I awore thatX had received an intimatipn, but I found that it was not'so, when I' camb to JTook at my testimony; the_ iutir mation that I received waa about the Adjutant- ¦G^enerars, otfice, ,wbicb was made some jfew weeks before the occurrence; I swore that I received an ^biitima^tlon from Colonel Moore; I cannot give 'thetime, itwas in the courue of two or throe weeks; when I awore, the reatof ation of Adjutant-General Jind 'tlie ap_pointment of Becreta'-y of War ad inter.i7n.yr&B on my mind: when I was exarained, I thought the aippoint- ment as Secretary would ceaae, because it had beei^ inti mated to roe bv tfie P,resident; 1 told him I would obey ]biB orders, becauae he was Commander-in-Chief; I did ,iiot make this responac on ^ceiving other comniisaiona. as they were ordinary ones, and this waa an extraordinary one, aa I never had one of that kind before. (Langliter:) a. Did yoil go to Mr. Stantou between the 18th ano. Slst, tell him you were going to take' his place? A. No, 'sir; I was at the War Department evqry dny in the mean time; onthe 21at the President aent for rae again, but I had no auBpicion aa to what he wanted me for, and after laying me the two papera, the notice to Miv Stanton aod the appointment of myself aa Secretary ad interim, they ¦ being first read by Colonel Moore, the President paid, "I jahall uphold the Conatitutiou and -the laws, audi oxpect ypu to do the aame;" I aaid, "Certainly Xfihall do BtO, and shall obey your orders." Q, Let me aee if I havo ^ot thja. The President, you say, Came out with two papers, which he handed to Cqlonel Moore ; Colouid M;Oore,road them, and tho Presi- 'dc'iitthensaid:— "I am goiug'to uphold the Constitution .and the law, and 1 want you to do the aame." and yon ,pak}, "I will obey your orders.'' Why did you putin that (ifbout obeying nis orders? . A. I auppose , it waa \ery patural, jQ.' Wljajtuext waa said? A, He told me to.- go to M^. Stanton, and deliver the papers, to him. ; O: Which you did? i A. Yes'. :, , G, At tnat first iutervieWf before you left the building, Wr., Stanton gave you a lettCii'. A. Yes, Bir. , . , Q,'Theuypu knew that he did not intend to gave up ^e omce?- AjJtdid, Q, You so understood fulily? A. Yes. , ,, ' u. Vou went back and reported that to the Presidentf X Yea. ¦ . . . , J QJ Did yon repo;i:t to him that Mr, Stanton ^d not meas to give up tho oi^ce ? A,i I reported to him e^actb* wJiai^ Mr; Stanton had .said. Q,, Did ,he not osk yoa what you thought about it ? A; He dld.npt, •, 1 ¦ . ' Q. Did you tell him ? A. I did not. ^ Q, You reportod the same factH,to him wMch made the ImprcENion ou your own mind that Mr. tstanton was not going to give ujp the office ? A. I dlidt; I reported the facts of the conversation, '., ^ i,Q. Did you tell him about the Tetter? A. No. Q. Why did you iiot? A. I did not Buppose it necessary. Mr BLTLER— Whs, herer was a letter ordering you to Mr. STANBERY-I iotject to your arguing to the wit- JBces, Ask him the-guCBtlou. Mr, BLTLER-pSaao wait tUl the question is asked bfr fore you object. To the Witness— Q. Ifou hada letter which showed that your actfl were illegah. and which convinced you; as yoa ^*fer..STANBERY-(iaterrupting)-Jtoduce the question ^''jE BL?rLBR-I Bhall not be able to reduce It to writtng if von don't afop interrupting me. To the witncBfr— Q. Ytou badia letter from Mx. Stanton^ which* together with other facta convinced vou that Mr. Stanton did not intend to ' five up the office ; now with that letter in yonr pocket why id you not report it to your chief? A. I did not thinkit was necessary; I xojroirted the converBatlon. ' ^ ; 6. Did you tell the Preaident that Mr. Stanton had giveo orders to General Schriver and General Townaend not toObevvou? A. I think I did. ..,•». , Q. Have you any doubt about it in your own mmd? At Idon'tthinki have any doubt about it ' ., Q. So that I understand you to Bay the Preaident t* plied. '.'Very well ; go on and take poBseaaion of the oifice?** A. 1 think so. . ,„ . , ^, . , ' . . Q. Waa there imytbiog more said? A. I thmk not, al thattiraei Q. You went away? A^ YeB. Q^ About what tirae ofthe day was that? A*. About one or two o'clock. ' ¦ ¦¦ Q. You told Mn Wilkeson that you meant to call ob ^General Grant tor a military force to take, poiiaession « the office : did you mean that or was it mere rhodomoia. t»do? At I'Buppoao IF did not mean it ; I have uevcr had jt in my head to use force. Q, You 4Id uot mean it? . A. IS'Oj ' . r Q. WaB,it merely boastand brag? 1 A. Yes. Q. Did yOu again toll him that you intended to urfe force to get into the office? A. That I do uot recollect.^ I. stated ,it to hira once^ I know, i , Q, Canyon not tell whether, you bragged to himagaia <^at evening? A. I did not brag to him, . Q. Did you uot tell hira at WHlard'a^ that ^On meant to use force? A. Itold. him cither at Willard's orat iny own house; I do not think I told him fmore than once.' ,Q.. You aaw Mr.- Burlewh fliat evening? A. Yes, air, '^ Q, Did you tell him that you meant to uae force? A. imb expreaaion that I used was. that if I found my doMf locked, I.would bi^eak them open. ' " Q. Didhe'Eot put the question to you iu this form— What Wouldyoudo if Stanton did not go out? and did youiUOt say youwould;puthim out? A. IsnppoieldidtbutXam notcerfjain. , i . . ,' ; Q. Did he not then say— Suppose ho bars the door? and did not you say you would break the door down, and W^ thatbrag? A No, that wasuot brag;Imeantit then.- ' Q. You had got over the brag at that tirae? A. WheoJ had this conversation with Mr. Burleigh I felt it Q. And at thatt time vou really mean^to go on and break down the doors. A. Yea^ if they were locked. ' ^ .liQ.And vou reallly naeasUi to use torce? A, I meant Q. What you said to him you meanti^n good, solemn oa» nest? A. Yes. .0, There was no rhodomontade theuK A. No. Q. Andhavinggot over the Playful part of it, and thinlt- ing the matter over, you cdine to the concluaion to uao force, and having come to that conclusion, why'did'uot you use it? A. Because I refiected that it would hot answer; I raight produce difficultv. ¦ '• Q. What kind of difficulty? A. I suppose bloodshed, Q. What else? A. Npthing eiae^ . Q. Then by difficulty, you meiin bloodshed? A If il used force I supposed II would be reaiBted by force, and blood might ha.vo:beeu issued; thatis jmy answer. '. ^ Q. What tun© ' did' yoU, leaver Mr..Buirleigh( or Burtfelgh leave you? A, It was after night when he came there jW visit waa-avesgr'short one. ' |. ¦ , ' '' ; .- . -/i ',Q. Aboujt what time did he leave? A. Abont nifieo'clbck, I suppose. .¦ '>j ij ,'•;.'..' i, ¦ ¦' Q. How long was it after Mr. Burleigh left ; was it be fore you left to go to the masquerade ball? A. I went there; i think, about hal!j^past nme o'clock.- . , ;Q., uidyou see anybody of yonr own family between the jiipie th^ iUx. iBurle^h left . Q. The dbast tbat you told anybody on this queetiou iraa when yid you toU Mr. Buideigh that the reason you did not use forCe ji^aa because you hud been arrested? A. I do not thmkthaitIdid;Ih»dno'doikbt that Mr. Stauton would resist any attempt toitake poBsesBion by force, and that to obtain posBessiou, force would have to be usedi Q. Pidyoareporl^thiscoBCliudon to the Preaidont? A. IdidnpttMnkitneeossary; I never asked the Prosidenfe IMPEACHMENT Oi", ANDREW JOHNSON. lit for advice or for orders; I had four interviews with Mr. >fitautoa^ and every time," Mr, Stantoh refused; I stiggeBted to the fresideut that -the true plan would be In otder to get posaeaaion of the papers, to calUipon G^n. Grant ; I wrote a draft of au order , on .General Grant and left it with the Prpsident . V ' ",., . , j q. Did you sign il ? A, ^ea ; the letter la dated Jho lOth of March; I had spoken to the President before about the matter, and the letter was to be iaaued aa my order, and ft was It^t for the conaidejvtion of the President ; it waa a Veaceable order, and I had no idea any bhwdahed would grow out of it; I have attended Cabinet meetinga, and boon recognized- continually as Secretary ad interim by the President and Headsof Departmeut down to the preseut hour, : ;¦' Q. And all your action as Secretary ad interim has b^en confined to attending Cabinet meetings? A. I joined in the ordinary conversation that too^ place at the meetiDgs, but I don't know that I gave him any particular advice ; he asked me' several timea if I, had any businesfltolay before him, bnt I never had any, (Laogbtor.) Q. The President did not agree to send that notice tp General Graut did he? A. When I first spolfc, to. hiui, bbout it I told him that the mode of getting po^seaaidfapf' the paper was to write a note to General Grant, asking him to isaue an order calling upon the heads of bureaus!, aa ihey were railitary men, to send him commuQicatlons de signed for the President or for the Secretaryof War ; th,at Was one mode. Q. What waa the other mode that you Btiggeated? A. The other mode waa to require the mails to be delivered from the post office to me. ' ' - : Q. And he told you to draw up tho order? A. No ; he did not ¦ . <. Q. But you did so? A. I did it pf myeelf after having thiB converaation. . Q. And did he agree to that BUggeatlon of yours? A. He said he would take it and think aboitt it and he pUt the paper upon lus desk. Q. When was that? That was on the lOth. Q. Haa he ever spoken ,to you about that order since? A, T think I may have mentioned it, Q. Did he ever ask you to know Where the troops were about Washington? A. He never did. Q. Or who had charge of them? A. He never did. 6. Did you tell Colonel Moore that you word going to the ball? A. Ithink not; fie may have known that I was ;oing, for Ihad secured tickctsfor my ch^drcn some days ¦^fore. . * . Q. Did the President in any of those interviewB with you as hiB Cabinet counselor or Cabinet adviser, Buggest to .vou that he had not removed Mr. Stanton? A. Never; he aUv^ya aaid that Mr, Stantou was out.of office. Q.. Did he ever toll you you were not appointed? A. Q. Havo you uot alwavs known you were appoiuted? ¦A. Yea, (Sir. Q. Has he uot over and over agalfl told you that yOu wefe .appointed? A. Not over and over again; I do not know tliat that pame np at all. , . ,, i ,--^ft- WUl you tell what you meant when you told tho ^Ksldcntftiatyftil were going to uphold tho Conatitution and the laws? A. Lmeant that I would be goverued by thoCdnatitution andthe lawa made in pursftance thereof. Q. Aud did you include in that the Tenure of Office act? A. Yes, ,'ao far aa it applied ta me. . ..... Q. You had that in your mind at tho time? A, Not par- ticularlyih my mind. , , Q. Did the President; a* ^^7 ^^""^^ when y^tu have seen bim give you- any directiona. other than thoBe about taK^ing iDossession ofthe War office? A, He has told me en seve' -tOil occasion^ that he wanted to get some nominations sent up which are b'ing on Mr, Stanton's table, and he could jipt^tthem;he,didnotgetthem.. _ , ,, . Q.^hat did he tell you about them? A. I could not gtst tbem. ' Q^And ho could not bo far as you know? A. Bo far as I know. ' Q. Andhe complained to you? A, No; he died not oom- plam; he aaid he, wanted^ them aa Bome of them were gqlng over ; I twice said to rem.irk about the order, when be wile cat short bythe Chief Justice directing 'the counsel for the President tp proceed. General Thomas Makes Corrections. Mr. STANBERT said that General Thomas desired |p.niake'Some corrections in his testim,ony, and Gene ral Thoinas took the stand and said;— I wish tn cutv rect my testimony yesterday; I read a letter sis^ned by Mr. Stanton and addressed to me .on the aist of Febraary ; I didn't receive the copy of that letter un til the next day after I had made the demand for thb qtSce; the Secretary came in and handed me' the orleinal; my impression ia that I, noted in that priginaj the receipt; I then handed, It to Oeneral Tdw'nBSnd to make the copy that I r^ad here; I had, tt ost until the 22d of Pebraary. ' Q, Then when you saw the Preaident on tbe aftelr noon ofthe 2l8t y^u bad not r$ad (hat le((er from Mn Stantori? A. I had not. Tn6 next correction I want tp make is this; I said, that the President i.lOld Ine ito take possession of the offlsf ;. jie ^xpres^ed it "iakt charge" of the o^ce. ¦ ,¦ Q. Are yoa 9ectaiii that wm the ejpr^sslQitT A. J 118 iMPBieHMMT op' AHdREW' ibllN'sbN. Km positive ; I was asked if ' I 'cohM ' g\ ve the date of imy brevet commission; dan't know whether it is im portant or not; Ihave it here; 4he d^te isl2tb of Maich, 1865; Mr. Sfant^ngave.it to me; h« h|ftd,^re than once intefaaed to give it to me, hut ou this occa sion, when I Fcftnrned Trom my d&ty, I said tlie time had arrived , whcO I onsfht tO' have .the comnJJssioo, and he gftye,it,,to me. Here is apother point: I stated when I waa before tbepo^im'Utee of tbe House man- aserp. General Butler asked 'the clerk. I think it was, ¦fur ihe testtrabny of Dr. Bairlei^h ; he said he had It nftt; that it v^iss.at home^ I don't know whethef-he Baid or I eaid *tl} makes no difference ;¦ ' he asked me ft number of dueBtions in reference to that; 1. ^seated to them alT; I' never beaPd that teslimony i*ead;I' Bcver beard-Dr. Burleigh's tcBtimonyi'nor do I rfedol- lecl ffhe queations, except that Ahoy were - atl^d me, ,aud I sai(^ Dr. ^nrlai^b.pp doiM>^ woald TecoHoot jthe ConvcrJBation'beUer than"!. I . j Bis Croas-ex^i^ination. . - Crnsa-exiimined'" by Mr. BUTLER— Q. General Thomas, how many tinjes did yon aus.wer yesterday thnr t'he Preeideut told you at that time to *'take pos- ¦seP^ion of the ofBce?" A, Well, 1 bave nbt read over my toBtimony; I bave not read over iiny testimony, and 1 don't know how ma'ny times. Q. Was that untrue ea^b tiiiie? A. If I ai^id '6o, it 'wns ; "fake charce" Were the words used. Q. 'B.iwy. TOQ any memorandum by which yoti^can correct Tn.\texpre,"<8ion? If so, produce it. A. Ihave nomfranrsndnm with me here; I dpn't know tl^at I 'iiaveauy; rbaru not' looked at oh^ since I was on the stand; I cjui smte it better lo-day t^an I did yes terday, becanee I >aw and reiid that evidence as re ported ; I gave il yeeterday myself, and I know bettfe'r 'what it was by i'e^dih)r' it than When I testified t(> it.; .'and I am sure thrWOrds were '^'take charge of," and the three times when 1 reported to hito that MV, Stan ton wonld not ro nut or refused 'to go out, each time •he said "take chiirgjiB'Of the oflSce;" my attention, at the time he" B?iid that, wns not* called 'to the difference "between the words "take charge of the officeV and -**tnke poBBCssion of the offlc'6 ;*' but I recollect it dis tinctly now, .because I know^ph^t was the expressjou ; 'I have always known that that was Che expression; I made the mistake, because I think the words wereput Uno my inotttb. Q. JuetasMr, Karsner di«!? (Laughter.)' A. .Yea, Bir; 1 don't know rt^bat I am in the habit 'wheu auy- body puts worde , into my month, of taking >thetn; lifter I aud Karsner were ^Hujrnnned heue as wit nesses, 1 w.cutandtf^uarre1ed with him ;' I had some words with bii^ in the room ,bere a^jojning (indicating the door behind 11101); tcilled mm a liar and a per jurer. (L,>UEhter.)r Liar iand perju^rj Both; I did cert^liulycftU Mm'a liar aud s, porjarer;,! knew- thai be and X were both'iu the witness-room, waiting to be called, and I knew he was ^ h^re fpr that pnrpoee.; "tphile he' was there I unaertook to talk with him a^ont his testimony ; I 8ta.tefl to biu^ in. two instances; I Will give them to' yoii. ¦ Q. Answer my question. I asked yon this question,: whether yon imdettook to talk to bim abqut the testi- mony? A. I don't know who mtroduped the conver- ^^tjoq;,ceK^finiy Uf^t I, I d'pn't thinks for .hie was th'ere for some fiiine'^ before I spoke to him. Q. Didyou speak dr;it;.Qr^e7, A. Tbat {I don't re- cell. ' ' \ .', ""¦' " , ' , ¦ :.'.- ¦ Q. Did yon tell him tbat be was a Uar and perjurer At thlittim'e^ A. 1 did tell liim that be was a Uar, aiul'iiiay hav6 said be waa a perjurer. Q. Did.yw ojffer.yiolfiliiCe!- to blin except lu tbat Wiiv? A. Iwas then in, full uniform, as I, api nQ.)7 — mMj'T-i^eueral'B nniform.' ¦ '^ ' t - Q. A^lOthe^ qnestion I wanj; to ask yon which wAs omitted: Do'you still Intfcind to take charge or' pos- eesstou of the office o'f Secretary of War? A^ ^irm\y — I do; I have tie'vdreaid to aby person w^Jiln a few -diiys that' we will have 'that ,iell^'w (meab^fik ' Mr. 'BU;nion) ont of it or sink tlite ship— hever. Q. Did yoa say tb MP. Johnson atiytbing to tblat ¦effect? A. Not tbat I have atiy recollecCi'6^ of.,' ' Q. Do you know whether you did or |i6t? Ai 'Vyhat MK Johnson do yon mean? ' '^ ' Q, I mean D. B. Jp>h>on. A. There wa^ |a Mi*. JobiiE^ou came t6 see Wie at myboase iu tefei'encii t,o anotber matter; we may have had sOibe c6nV Q. Let me g^ve yuu a dale, as far back as Friday week? A. I don't know about that, Thomas in a Jokins JUopt^ Qj. Was it longer than that? A. I did npt.char£?e,my memory with it ; it \^8 a private conversation that we had; I waa joking then. (li'tnghter.) , .¦> 0.. Did you,.joking or. otherwise, utp these woi^s t^:- "We swil'lbftVe Stanton; out if wis have' to' sink the ship?". A. I have no recollection c*f using any sjich exprcBsiou. ,. ^ ' R. Did jOu make nse -of ;^yi!fr expression eqniyaleni (tojt?, A. Ih*veipo,irecollectiiOB ofit. * Q. Have you snch recollectioniof what yon did 'saV aa to know wbat yow did not eay? A. J have not; i would rather Mr. Jd'hnsou would testify himsejf as t,^ the converaatipn. Q. Do you ^eny that yon said so? A. Well, I won't deny it, becanse I do uot know 'that I did. (Laugh ter.)' ' -i ^ ' ¦-¦ .'¦ '-' ' '• "¦•" '¦- Q. Tou.say yon would, r,athei' be wonld testif/; w6 win try and db'lige you id thit fespecf; bnt if you di^ say so, was it true, or was it merely brag? - A. Xou inny' cftlMt what yonpleafo. , : - Q. What do.you call ii ? A. I do not call it brag, i Q. Whiit wasiv?" A. It was a' mere conversation whfitevei* was saiA; I didn't rafean to use ady influ^^oe a^amBt Mr. _Stanton td get him out of office. ' Q. What did you mean by the expression that "yon would have bini'out iif you sink the sink the ship. A* r sny that I do not know that I nsed that expression. Q.' We will show that^y Mr. Johnsim; but I am a8- snming tbat yod did use il, and I ask yon What mean- .ing did yon have? , , , ,, i , ' Mr. EVARTS— Ton bave no right to assume tbat Hr. Johnsou will testify, tbat; he has not said so yet. Witness— I cannot say what the conversationr ^?s: ¦Mr. J*GhuRon was there on official 'business tobneiitea with the diiimiss^l of an o^cer from the array. , ' ' Mr. BUTLER— Then ydu were joking ou th^at m)h ject? A, Certiinly. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Johnson before? A. I do uot recollect, possibly 1 mHy have seen bim. '''*¦ Q. Have ^(>u ever seen him since? A. Not to xpjf knowlege. , ¦ ,1,^ Q. Here was a stranger who called upon you npon official business conuected with thearmy, aud didyon go to joking in tbat way with bim, a total ^stran^e^ A. I knew him as 'the lawyer employed by Colond Belger to get bim reinslate.d- '¦ > >'r > ^^w Q. WHo.was ft stranger to yon? A. I think be. was. Q. And did you; go to joking with a stranger on such a subject? A. Certainly ; we bad quite a fami liar tftlk. ,:....¦ Q. And that is ^_e only explanation you can give of the corivei^safeoM'^'X. It ifl anfflcicnt, I think.' Q. SpfB^ient orppt^ia it tb^only oneyoq-can give? A. It is the only bne I do give. ' Q. ^ And is it the'bniy one yOn can give? A. Yes. Q. Did anybody talk' to yon abont your .testirhonV since you left tbe stand yesterday? A. I 'supposal have talked with a do^en persons;, several persons met nie.aud said they were Very glad to haar my testi- mony; 1 was met to-day by several, who spoke to-hie jocularly about my takingan equal drink with tWp Se cretary of War; I have talked with my own family .about it. , ' Q. Has iinybody talked with yon abput this point (Wbpn,iy.o.niCBai\ged your testitaouy? A. I came here tnis morning and saw£he managers, and told tbem. Mr. BUTLER— Ton don't mean tbe managers? Mr. EVAKTS Bng.gestad-tbat he meant tbe cotiusel for tbe Preisident. Witness— I meant tbe counsel for the I^esident. Mr. BUTLERv^Di^ yoa talk with anybody "WSfore thatoutheB«pt>lAt^7 A. Yes, "witb QgneVtil Town- send this morning. 'loQtjTJUe A»si8t»mt^¦Adj^tant-Gett«ral, but with ho- ¦}>jC)UK el^e? . A.„.I htkYe aaid no^ and I am sure, (laughl* t«r); I did not receive a letter, a copy,, or note from Mr. Stanton on the 2l6t ofifebruary ;I said yesterday that be pave ^nb^tbe bTlffttfal ; I have riot seen tbat ori ginal since:,), tbe dateimwrbotBd^oa tbat original; ''Uha one ][ read .here was ^iv^n on tjbe 22d^ Fcjbt^ary; It wutf hauded to GiUcral Townsend, aiid ^e made a IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. na • 1 Atpy; tbat viae on the 12d;' tt waa datedtbe 21st; it #a8 prepared' the day ben>re,'ljbei1eve. < v; , ¦ ¦ Q.Bon yon mean te tAlfe ail l>aclt that wasaaid In' General Scbrivfer'S room about your not going ou with the oflice, or about their not obeying you on 'the after- toon of the 2lBtr A. Oh, yes, it was the 32d, I thiult ; Genet's! Townsend wae tiiere on- the 21st. Q.'Tbeaonthe 21st there was' nothingisaid abont any one obeyinsr you? A. I tbinlt not ; 1 thinly there was li'ot anything said about nol obeying.me; ttjere was nothing satc^bont not obeying me on tbe:2lBt'at ell, I think. . ¦ « Q. And yon oever reported Uf }he President that Mr. Stauton said ou the Slst he would not obev youf A'. I reported to the President the two conv^tsatCdns I had wirh him ; on the 2lBt there was no such conver eation asl tes'tilied to, that is, not' in reference to that ; there Wasnn 'conversaltfon ' at ali as to General tTowUseud' not obeying me on the 2*lst. ¦ Q. Then 'when , J'ou told us yesterday that you re ported that to the President, ' andthat ynu got his an swer to ft,' all that was not Sd? 'A. (With emphasis) That was not so. , .¦-—.¦¦ ..i ¦' ' '(^. Now for ailother matter. "When were you ox- pinined before tbe 'CorflraitteeJ Wituess — What' committee?' I haye ^een examined twice. Thomaa Bothered. ¦ Q. Ton were exanjined before tbe Committee of the Bouse, not tbemanagers, knd in answer to tbis ques tion, ''Did ymv make any report on Friday of vvhat transpired? did you uot use these' words:^'Tes, sir; 1 saw the President and told him what had occurred;' he said, 'Well, go along- and administer ithe depart ment.' - A. When I:atated' what had occurred with Mr. Stanton, he said to rae : — 'Tou mutt just taite passesslun of the department and carry on the busi ness.'" . ,,',' Q. Did you swear tbat before tbe committeeV A, I eay, as I said'befure, thati was mistaken then. T Qi That is not the: question. The question is did ¦you swear it? A. If that is there I suppose I «wore U. ;¦ iQ. Was it true? A. No; I never used tbe words to- .'gethet*; I wish; to make one statement in reference 40 that very thing ; I was called there hastily ; a great 'many events bad transpired; I requested ou two oc casions that tbe .committee would let me wait and consider; tbe committee refused,, and would not let »'ine. and 'pressed me with questious. . . , .> Mr. BIITLER-Q, When was that? ,A. When I, was 'Called before tbat committee, on the evening of tbe ¦trial.' ,' '. . . , ° - Q. February 267 A. , Tes ; I went there after getting through (bat trial, aud on two occasions I requested rthercominittee lo postpone the -examination until tbe :iiext morning, until 1 conid go over the matter, but that was not allowed, me. Q. Did yoa make auy Bach request? A. I did, twice. — ,, : (J. From whom? A. From those who w^re there ; •the committee, I think, was- pretty full ; I do uot.know whether Mr. Stevens was, there; be was tUcre a por tion oJ tbe time, but I do not know whether he wae jthere at that' pSjrticular time. liorenzo Wants Time to Consult his Mind. (J. Do you tell the Senate, on your oath, that you teguested the comqiittee to. give you time to answer a question, aiid that' the Committee refused. A. I re quested, that tbe examination might be deferred until the next morufng, when I could have an oppo'rtnnity to go over tbe matter in my own miufl;, that was not .granted ; there W)i6 norietusal made, but I was pressed with questions; thed' there is an.otbet matter! want to say; I came in to correct that testimony because ,there ate two things doafpuod^d in it, in reference to the ame of niy appointment as Adjirtant-Generai and .the date of my appointment as Secretary of War ad interim; leupuosed the coihmittee was ssking in re- .fereuce to the first and'thit Is the reason why these two thipgs got mixed up; wh«n 1 went there to cor- ,Tect the,iestimony I wds told, to read it over; I found Mis mfitake,,*ud I found that Some of It was not Snglisb; I thoifsht something was token down too ¦ that I did not say; the committee wonldnot permit me to correct the manusftript. but I pnt the correc- ttons.atth$ bottom, just id a hasty way, and t sup pose itis on that paper that you hold in your hand. , Mr. BtJTLEE— We will come to tbat. (J. HaVe yon got thnmgh with yout statement? A- I have. Q. Very well. Did yon not coma aud ask tb see your testimony ns it was talcen. down before the com mittee? A. I vrent.to thje clerk and saw him. . Q. Did he give yon the report whish I hold in my haud? A. flewas not iu the tlrsi . time, and I came the. next day; thai dsy, he banded it to me, and he'' went twice, I think, to some member of the com.inlt- tee, Ido.not know who, for instructions; I said I wanted to make ,the. report decen't Bugli'sb, aud I, wanted to know wbetber I could not correct the mannsctiptv and il.e. reported that I might nuikp my corrt-ctions in writing; I think I rend the whole lesti- monjover; I am uo4 certain ; I do not know thati dSd^; I came.to correct this first portion .it particu larly; that was the reason I went there. - . Q. Did you want to correct ony other portirtn of iti A. Tbe flrst part only,; it referred toa mistake aato tbe time aboat,my mixing up tbe appoiivtmeui of Ad jutant-General and Secretaryof "War ad interim; it had reference tp.a notillcatioli given t9 me by the Pre sident to be Secretary of War or of Adjutant-General ; 'thai was mixed-up ; 1 stated that 1 received that noti- -fication fromi Golonei M,oore; Colouel Moore dld'izive me a noti Acation, that I would prdbably beput back .-is Adjutant-General, but he' did uot give me a notidca!- tion that I WoolA probably, be apoointpd. Secretary ot War, and itwas that that rwist^ed tp correct; that was the principait correction ; I did not want to cor- reot anything else, but if anything else Waa wrong I did; 1 wished to correct any ert ors, whatever they migliit be; Ithen went over my tesiimimy 'and cor rected such portionsas 1 pleased ; I had tbe priviltrg^ iio do tbat, of course, 'ftud I wrote out bere on portioiis of two-sheets my correqtious; this iB mv baud writing; it is my own handwriting, and' I sitrned' it"i.oreuzo Thomas, AdJutaulrGeaeral," ',:,, j Q. Now haying, read qver .'J'our testimony, did yon eorreet anything in thai^' portipn of it where you are reported as saying tbat tbe President ordered you t^ go forthwith aud takp possessipii,and administer the office? A. I do not think 1 made' any such correciiqu as that. ".^ .,,'-. ' ¦' Q. Tou swear that-thai was ^9t true? A. Ihave said ao. ., .' , ,.,* Q. Why didn't ypti correct it,' , A, I have thought the matter over since. j' ^^, Stanbery Asks a Question. Ee-direct examination by Mr. iSTANBERT. Q. |l found in the repart, of your testimonv, giveu yesusr- day, that'Juiyom or.igjtial ^xninination "you were aiifced this question :— What occurred betweea the Presidout atidiWOrseifjIitatbe, second interview, on the '.ilat of February?" Tour answ'e'r given is this:— ''I stated to the President that I -hsd deli-versd ithq commniitcatioh ftudtithat.- bP gave thia answer, ']^o yoij wish me ;o vacate at oii.CB,.pr,win jou gi^e.mo tim^.to taKP away my private property?' and tbat I answered, 'at youp pleasure ;' I then stated that, after dellv,e'i-ing the copy .of tiie,Jetlerto htm, be said, 'I dp not know whether I will obey your instructions or resist thein ;' this I mftuttioned .-jto the Prwsideut; his answer was, '"Very well; go on and. take charge of the office; perfbrin .the duty.'" Now, :dia thePresident aay that? A. Tes, sir. Ad Interim Id a Muddle. i Mr. BUTLER— Q. Then yon mean to say, in answer to 'Wt. Staubery, that yon got it all right, and that iu answer to me yon got it-'all wrong? A. Tes, in refer, ence trt vour eiraminaliioiii.' i Mr. BUTLER-That is all. Mr. STANBERY ihtiftTated (hat counsel woiild again call General Tho'iPiaa after 'they got in some record evi, deuce. '¦-..-- Mr. BUTLER said tbey might call bim any time. Lientena-nt-Geueral Sfaeruian Sworn. Liefitenant-General William T. Sherman, who a^ peared ita the undress Uniform of l^s rnuk. Was next Sworn atid ' eiarained by Mr. STANBEBTii-I wae id Washington last wititer; I arrived here about tbe 4th of Decembei*; remained here two mnutbs, Uutil about the 3d or 4th of Pobruai'y ; I came here as a member of the Indian Peace Commissiou ; I bad no mher busi* uess bers at that time; subsequently I waa assign^ to a board of offlcers, organized under a law of Con gress, to make articlea of war and regulations for the atdiy ; as to ths date of that anigumeht I can procure the order, which will be perfect evidebee as to the date; it was written withiu ten' diSys bf ttiy arrival hero; I think it wa^ about tben^Iddledf December that the Order was issued ;, I bad a doiiWe duty foi- s few days; during that time, firom th; 4ih olSeiJetnb^ 120 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON, to the 3il or 4th of February, I bad several interviews Wjtb tbe Pi-esident ; I saw him alone, when there was no'p.ersonspreseiir bat the Presid^Dt ahd myself; I silw'him, also, in coinpany with G^httl'al 'Grant onoe, ahd I think twice; I bad (everaf interviews with him tn reference to tbe case bf Mr. Stantou. : Mr. BtNGHAM— We desire, without delay, to re spectfully submit unV objections to this, declining, however, to argue it We sbbmit oar objections, be lieving it our duty as BepresentatiTes Of the Honse to dn so. Mr. S'tANBEHT-^Ohjectlons to what? Mr. BINGHAM— To the declarations of the Presi dent touching any matter involved iu this issne not made at the time when we have called them out our selves. They ar^ ndt competent evidence. Mr. STANBER'T— Allow me to come to some qaee- tiod that we Can 'start apon. This is merely intro-, ductory. ^on Will soon see the object of the ezarai* Bation of General Sherman. Mr. BINGHAM— I understand the object to be to prove his' cunversatioh 'with Tbe President. Tbe Chief Justice— No question of that kind has beeu asked yet. ' Mr. BINGHAM— We nhderstand it. ' Mr. STANBERT— WS will come to that point. [To the' witness.] '^. -While you were here, did the Presi dent ask you if you would take charge of the office of the Department of War on the removal ot M r. Stauton? Mr. BUTLER- Stop a Inoment. I Object, and ask that that qui-aiion be reduced to writing. Mr. STANBERT— Do you object to tbe qnestion because it is leadibg, or do you object to It in sub- staiice 9 * ' ' ^ ' Mr. BUTLER— I object to It for ev4ry reason. Please put ytiur qne'sfion in writing. ' Mr. STANBERT tp witness— At what time were those interviews 7 [Witness refei'red to eome memoranda to flnd the dates.] Mr. STA^fBERT— Had you an interview w!tb him 'beforb Mr. -StahtoU came'-ba'ck' into 'tbre <^ce, :and while General. Grant was still in it ? A. Tes, sir: Q, Of a social uatbre ? A. Entirely so, before that time. Q, Had you an interview- wjlth him before that 7 A. I bad. Tbe day following Mr. Stanton's return, I think; Geueral Grant was-also present. Q. What did that interview relate lo 7 Mr. BUTLER— Stop a moment. Put thb qnestion in writing. - Mr. STANBERT-^The qnestion is what did it re late to? ' , , . Mr. BUTLER -I object to that. ' Mr. STANBERT lo witness— Well, then, did it re late to the occupation of the War Drpartmeut by Mr. Stanton? A. It did. Q. Now, what was it? Mr. BUTLER— stops moment I object to that Pat your motion in writing. Q. By Mr. STANBERT. - What conversation ¦passed between ybu and the President? Mr. BUTLEH-Excuse me. I asked to have the question in writing. The Chief JiistiicB— The connsel will please puti tbe question in writing. , ^ Tbe questinn was reduced to writingj as follows;— .. Q. At that interview,, what'Conversiition took placH between the President and you in reference to the re moval of Mr. Stanton 7 Mr. BUTLER— To that we object. 1 suppose we - cau agree 'as to the.dats. It was the 14th of Januarv. On tbe 13th Mr. I^aulon was reinstated, and the 14tli was the day after. . ". - , , Mr. STANBERT, to witness— Can you give ns the date of tbat converBiitiOn ? Witness -reilBrring to aj .memorandum which he held— Mr. Stapton was rein-; stated in possessianof. bis oQiceas Secretary pf ^ar ,pn Tuesday, ,the 13th or Jauuary, and the conyersa- tion occurred on Wednesdav, thje 141b,, The Chief Justice-The Chief Jpstics thinks the question admisaihle within the principle of tbe decl- SK.u already mad!^ hy the Seu.'vtc, but.he>will be pleased to put the quei^tion tq tlje 6epal»>rs. . Senator CONNESS uemiinded the yeas |ind nays on tbe admission pf^lbe, questioa. Mr, S TANBEET ruse to argue the point He sMP the coansel for the President ask piefely to s^te the ground on which they claim to put the qiiestiou. We .exBect to prove by General Sherman- Mr. BUTLEE— luterrupting. j: object to your stating that, I did pot ask tbat, That is an attempt (u g«t be fore the court, I mean before tbe Senate the testi mony Iby the statement of caunsel. The questipn snlely is whether the declaration of the President caQ. b» Biwen' in 'evidence— what the declarations are it wnnld be- improper to state because that would be ti^^ ging thewhole questioa honorable manager who opened the case, on ps^ 94 of his argument ;-^ . .' .'^BatMogtelKSwn thst the President wilfully violated tbe act of Congrese without justiilcalion, bolh ip the removal of Mr. Stanton and the appointment of Mr. Thomas, for the purpose of obtaining wrongfully pos session of the War Ofiice by force, if need be; ahdcer- tainly by threats atid intimidations, for tbe purpose (^ controlling its appropriations through its ad interim Chief, 'Who' Shall say that Andrew Johnson is not gtiiltj of the high crime and misdemeanors charged agidnA -him in the first eight articles?" Then, Oh page 109, speaking of the orders of remi» val, he says :— "These and' hie concurrent acts shoifr -coficlusivel^ that bis attempt to get the control of tbe military force of the government by tbe seizing of ths Department of War was done in pursuance of his geueral design, if it were possible, to overthrow ths Congress of tbe United Statee, and he now claims by his acswer the' right td control, al his own will, fo|r the execntion of this very design; every offlcer of ths army, navy; civil and diplomatic service of tbe United States.'! Th™. on page99,iie says:— "FsiiiBB in his at tempt to get full possession of the ofiice through the Senate, he had determined, -as be .admits, toremove ''Stunton at all iiazards, and endeavored to prevaU m , the General tp aid-hira In so doing. He declines. -For* that the respondent quarrels with bim, (lenoancea -him in the newspapers, aud accuses him of bad faith and untruthfulness. Thereupon asserting his prerok- gatives as Comniunder-ih-Chief, he breates a new mili tary departmentiof the Atlitnlic. t ' "He attemptbd to bribe Lieutennnt^GenSral SfaermAli 'to take comthand' of it by proinotion to the rank df General by brevet, trusting that his military services would compel the the Senate to cignflrm him. If the respondent can get a General by brevet appointed, hb can then,'by simple order, put -mm on duty accbrding to bis brevet rank, and thUB bave a General of the Army in coramand .at Washington, -through whom hs i!a^ transmit his orders and comply with Ihe suit which he did not dare IrAusgress, as he had approved it, and gel rid of the hated General Grant Sherman spdraea thelnilbei"- ' c, .,,¦'., : "The respondent, not discouraged, appointed Maj,oi> General Geprge H. ThoinaB to the same brbvet rank, but Thomas declined. What stimnl^ted the ardor gf tbe President just at tbat lime, almost three yealU after the war dosed, bnt;iUBt ttfter the Senate hadreih- stated Mr. Stanton, to reward ihllttary service hy the appotntuient of generals by brevet? why did hie zcdl of promotion take that form and no other? There were many other merltoribtiB offlcers of lower rank desirous of promotion. The pdrpose is eVidelii to every thinking mind. He had deleripined to bei asidh Qrsnt with whom.he hkd quarreted; either by fiitS or fraud, eilher in cotirormiiy with or lh spite of the act of Congress, and cdntrol tbe military power df ,the country. On ibe 2lst of Peb-ruary (for a|i tbesh events cluster nearly abput the same point of time! he appoints Lorenzo Tbomas Secretary of War, aoB orders l^r. Stanton out of the offlcs. Mr. Stanton ii. fbaes to go. General Thomas is about the streets, decliii-ing that he wili put him out' by force (kidk him out) ; be has c^tight bis master's words,?' StlU more cleaflj' t" Ihe poiiit is tbe argument in rs- >rence to the adnilssion of Mr. Chandler's testihionj^, which we lind on page 251. They h^d called Ju;. Couper to show the intent of the PreBident tii get Mr.- Chaodler into the TreaEffry tibpartment, in the carry IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. ISl ¦tog out of hia allegsd conspiracy by controlling the rsr quisuums of the Treasury Bepartmenti and thus con- <(i-oiling tbe purse as well as the sword of tbe nation. Tbe only question Is, says the learned manager,- iS this competent If we cau show it was one of the ways and means?' '/ ; • The 'difficulty that rests in the minds of my learned ft-ieuds on the other side is, that tbey cluster every thing about the 2lBt.ai February, 1868. -They seem to 'forget that the act of theSlstof Eebmary, 1868. was only tbe culmination of a purpose farmed long before, as in the President's answer he Sets forth to-wit:^"As early as the lath of August 1861 ' • • * "''To carry It out there ase varioas things to £|o. ' He mnst get control of the WarGfficfe, hut what good does that do if be cannot get somebody who ,eball be bis -Bervant, his slave, dependent on^his breath to'answsr the requisitions of his pseudo oificer-whom he-maiy'ap- ,'liatint, and,' therefore,: he began when Stanton tyas -suspended, aud as early as the 12lh of December ble bad got tOiput tills suspension and theireasons for it ;hefore the Senate, and be knSw it/'wonid not live there one momeut.after'it got fairly considered. Now he begins; what is tbe first thing he does? To get -somebody in the Treasury Department that will mind me precisely as Thomas will if. I can get him in the WarDepartment? 'That is the flrst thing, and there upon, withont any vacancy, he mustmahean appoiut- jment Ths . difflcmltit that we find. is, tbat we are obliged to argue our case step by step on a<8ingle, ¦point of evidence.' , Xt is one of- the infelicities always ef putting in a case that sharp, keen, ingenious coun- .selcan insist at all steps,, on impaling you upon a .point of evidence, and, therefore,! have got to pro ceed, a little further. "Now, our evidence, if you allow it to comeiin, ls!«- First that he made this apuolntment ; that, this fail ing, he sent it to the Senate, and Cooper was rejected. .Still determined to-haveGuO'Per in, tie appointed him ad interim, precisely as ' this ad interim, 'Thtnnas was -ADpuinied. without law and against right. We put it OS a part ot thewhole machinery by which to jgiet if n which a presumption , was sopghtto,be raised by the 'prosecutiQii, whether tie pay ,upt show cj^em- poraucoue facts, cov^riog'tbe sanije tome as those nsed against him, aud declarations within t,be saipe tinie as those used against hira, and wbethpr hewili not be allowed to rebut the general presumption oi^uilt, and' to, show that the iutput tyas fair, tiouest ^nd layyful. Oeneral Butler's Repjy. Mr. BUTLER— Mr. Prpsident, and , Senators^' X was quite willing lO leave this case lo the jud-,ineniof bqth lawyers and laymen of the Senate wiihout a word of argument, and I only .speak now, to laiyyers. because the iearued counsel for -the pfesitient.empliasized.that word, as Ihougli l^e 'had expected same peculiar-ad-' vantage in spejikiiig to, lawyers. Ail the rules of evi-' dence are futiuded on the good sensje pf mankind, as experienbe.in courts of Uw' has showu; ,what,,is mo^t likely or most, Unlikely to. be ti-ue, and (o, elicit the truth. 'They address tbemscives juat as inuch .to lay men as they do to lawjers, because there . ai-e,uo,gen- tlemen in tbe .Sepatei nav, there are hb gentiemen anywheire, who' ciaunbt nudei-siaud the rules pf evi- dence; I agree that I tabor, nol, ppder any gr^at difficulty ip the aigumbnt' just mad?, but, I do lalior uuder great difflcntty iu the' opipionpf the .'presiding offlcer, and ini his deciding, without argiimeiit, that iii.bis opinion ' the qu'estioii'cPpes withiu ihp.rpliua of 'yesterday. 'If I'Jt did I should 'not have noiibled the 'buniiie, because Ihave long since leafn^jl to bow fo all decision^ bf the tribanal befor* which I.act.; but this is entirelyi another and a diiTerent casA What is,the.exacl,QusijJ tiou? ' It is, "In the ijtierview, to ,"w\t, op ,t,h' • iMr, EUUVLBRi^JA'iKl'heremainJd of tbat miad tig the' dextmomins. -What hefouudtochange bis mind in the masquerade*, ball orelsewhe/e he has- not told -US, nor'cao tie -tell -QS. 'When did be ebahge his miudn^ but I pass from that,' ' , - ' f: Now, hqw is the attempt to- be supported? TUi learned gentleman from'Ohlo says that iu a conmet> felt case you -have tO'pFove the BM'tfnitwe. Tes; bol bow? By showihg'the passage of' other counterfeit 'ImLI's?. Tes. -But, gentleman, did ynu ever hear, in tlje.case'of acouuterieiter, tbe defendant prove that bit did.not kuow the' bill was bad by proving Ihot at souls other lime he paseediagoodbill ?'-We try ihecouutsr* felt bill which 'We-nailel to tbecounter on the 21st 'Af& January, and iniorder to prove that Mr. ' J-t>hu'Son 'dfiQ not issue it, he- wauits to show tnat he passSd a goml bill on the 24th of January. It does not take auy lawyer to understand that th4t iB the exact propositifin. What is the nextgrou^Ui thatit is puii.'tipqn?' But betore I pass from that^ will say '.furthelr Iivwi' proved that the connieffelMi passed a bad bill (and 1 am folu>wing-the ilt objeot,_^X assure yon. (Laughter.) Now, What wis Lord George Gordon's case ? Lord George Gordon was accused of treason In leading a mobof Piote*- ants agalnst.the' HooseofPaTliainent and the cWSb of the mob matte publicly amd openly, were allowed lo be put in the evidwoe against hiin as a ¦ proof of the rea gestae, iThedefiiOse ' wJls the insanity of Lord George Gordon, and on the wbole ease they went in l'o,r the worst posslbla-l-ajige^of evSdenoe, ' Let Via IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. Hajor-General LORENZO THOMA& (9) IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSOljr. 123 connsel in this case come in and plead tbat Andrew Johnson IS insjine, and we shall go into all the couversatlon to see if they were .the acte of a sane than, not otherwise. The counsel, then went into the Lord William Rufl- sellcase.. Tbattjase was oneof those bo eloquentiy denounced by, tbe gentleman wbo opened for.the-Presl- 4ent yesterday, as one ot the cases of the Plantagsnets »d Tadors,< which hewould appeal to for authority, OajQ they have to prick into these cases, which yester day they were tp lay aside. The question theu was, "What was Lord William Bussell's character for loyally f fhe answer was, good. How loug have you known him 7 A. X have known him for a long' time, Did you ever hear him express himjself against tbe'.King and against the government 7 A. No. Did you ever hear him express himself in favor of inBurrectipn 7 No. jTust precisely as evidence, and the man's character is given. .They are not,argaing asto what Lord Russell Bald, but tbey wei^ often told that the. he did not say' Qsiything treasonable. Again, let me call your atten tion to anotber point oti which this is. pressed, and it Mf ms to be the strong point in the case, because my friend says it is \ital, hoping, I suppose, to affright yan from your propriety. .While it is a very impprtaht, mattSr, yon must pardon me for arguing it at some length. , Mr. STANBERT— The gentleman has fallen into error in referring to "my citation. Mr. BUTLER— X cannot allow ybn to interpolate any remarks, ¦ ¦ Mr. STANBERT— One moment if you plesse. Mr. BUTLER— X cannot spare a moment for that pviiiose. !Now, then,' Senatoi^. what is the other point? and that is tbe Only ,oue 1 feel any trouble, about It is that some gentleman may think that 'this question' comes within the ruling of theSenate yesterday. Yes-i terday we objected to the President's declaration after be said the 'conspiracy had .culminated, but '^e>-'Se- nate decided that it should be put in. ' Now, how ever, tbey propose to go a month prior lo that, time. We offijred to prove who Mr. Cooper is, and'wbat Mi*. Cooper. was doing in December, in order to show the President had intent at that time, but tbe Senate of tha United States rules it out; aud now the connsel for the President propose to snow What hfe said to General S'-ierman m December. . It has been remarked that X have said that the Fresideut was seeking for a tool, I have said so. At the same time I said he never fbund one in General Bberman. What X' do eay Ib this, and what I will say to you and the .couutry, that Mr. Johnson was -seek ing for somehody bv whom he' might get Mr. Stanton ont First he tried General Grant ; .then he wanted to get Geueral Sherman, knowibg that. General Sher man, not wishing to have the ienee of offlce, would be ready to get rid of them at any time; and then the PreBident shonld get in somebody else. He began vith General Grant, and. went down throngh Grant and Sherman, ahd' from Sherman to General G. H. Thomas— anything, down, down, down, until be got to General Lorenzo Thomas. Now tbey want to prove that becanse the President flld npt finds tool in. General Sherman, he therefore Aid not find one Iti General Thomas. These two things ao not hold together. Does it (Convince . you that be cause he did not- find a proper man to be made ad in terim Secretary,iand to sit in his Cabinet 'od interim, in General Sherman, that therefore he dfd not fida the proper man iu General Thomas. Then as Ito the ve hicle of proof. They do not propose to prove this by bis acts. I am willing that they should put iu an;r act at the President about that time, or prior Lo it, or since, although the Senate ruled out an act which 1 offered to prove. But bow do tbey propose to prove it? By a conversation between the President and General Sherman. I know. Senators, that you are a law unto yourselves, and that you have a right to admit or re ject any testimony : but you bave no right to override the principles of jnstice and equity; and to allow, the case ofthe people of the United . .States to b,e preju diced by the proof of the crimiual inade in his own de- fense before the acts done which the people complain of. If tbey have a right to put in evidence a converea tion with General Sherman, have they not a right to put in evidence of the conversations of the President with reporters and correspondents, and call Mack, and John, and Joe, and I. B. S. as witnesses. I think there is no law which makes the President's conversa- Ijons with General Sherman any more competent than his conversations with any other man; and where are ;oilj;oing to stop, if yon admit it? Tbey will get ths I, (orty, the, sixty, the ninety, or .a, Ijppdreddays th^t Ihpy asked for, by simply . repbrtipg the President'a conversations,, for I think I inay say, without offense, that be was a great conversationalist He will have reporters and evej^rbody 'else to tell flS about what he eaid. Alldwrae to say one thing fur ther; X Stated that idid notthink it right forthe . learned counael lo state what he expected to prove ; and in order to prevent his statement I said he mi^t imagine auy possible conversatiun, I thought it an unprofessional thing that he should, go on and state ;Wbat he expected to prove, and I said if he would ex- ' amine the book 1^' held in his hand he would find that in Hardy's case the Attorney-General of Eugland offered to read a letter found ,iu Harclv's possession, and began to read it, when Mrl Erskine ohjected, and said, "Yon must not read it until it is allowed ar^d given in evidence." T^he Attorney-General said he .wished tl^p court to miderstand what tbe letter was. Mr. Erskine said it could not be read'for that pur- .poae, The counsel for the President stated in tbe case tbat be wanted to show that the Preaident had tried to get i;.ts oflicer of the army lo take possession' of the 'War Dcpartiiieht so tbat he. could get Mr. Stantonjont That is what we charge. We charge that he would take anybody or do anything to get Mr. Slanton out 'That is the very thing we charge. Hewbiild be glad to get General Sherman in, or glad tojget General Grant ih, and failing in both, and failing ip Major-General George H. Thomas, the hero of Nashville, he took Ixirenzo Thomas to get Mr. Stanton out What for? In order, says the Atforney-Gensral, to drive Mr. Slanten into the courts. He knew what'his connsel knew, tbat Mr. Stantou . would not go into the courts . to get back the offlce. There is no process by which - Mr. Sfautpn could be. through the courts, reinstated in his office. X think they wlil find it difficult to Bh.ow that where a general law applies tp States and territories uf the Uuited States, it does not also apply- to the District of Columbia, Now, then, the simple question, and tbe only one on which you are expected to rule, is whether the conversations of the.President with General Sherman ; are evidence, and if they are eviden.ee, why are not all tbe couve'rsstions which hs . had at any time, with anybody, evidence? Where is the distinction to be drawp? ' . Mr. EVARTS— Mr. Chief Justice and Senators:- As qucBllQDS of ordinary propriety have been raised and beeu discussed at sume length by the learned mana ger, allow me lo read from page 165 of the record of this trial, on the question of'stating what is intended ,to be proved. Mr. Manager BUTLER- The object is to show the intent and purpose with which General Thpmas went tu the War Department on the mornin? of the 22d of February ; tbat he went witih , the intent and purpose of taking possession by force ; that he aljetted thai in tent and purpose ; tbat, in cousequence of tbat allega tion, Mr. Burleigh invifed General Moorhead aud went up to the War Offlce. The conversation which X expect to prove is this:- After tbe . President of the United States had appoiuted General Thomas and giveu bim directions fo tjike the War Offlce, and after he bad made a quiet visit .there on the 2'lsl, onthe evening of the 21sl he tojd Mr. Burleigh that the next day he was going to take possession by force. Mr. Burleigh said tP him— Mr. STANBERT— No matter about that; we object to that testimony. Mr. Manager BUTLER— Ton do nqt know what you object to,, if you don't hear what I offei:. Mr. BUTLER made some remark to the effect ,that Mr. Evarts was misrepresenting him. , ' , , Mr. B'V^ARTS— In the case of Hardy, statedby my 'learned associate, I understand the question, related exclusively to iutroduction ot couversationB between the accused and the . witness, professedly anteccdSBi to the'period of the alleged treason, and eveu that was allowed. And now, Mr. Chief Justice and Se(iatorB, as to tbemeritsof this question of evidence, this.is a very peculiar g^bo. Whenever evidence is stated to he made applicable to it then it Is a crime of , the par- rowest dimensions and of the most puny proportions. It consisls for its completeness, for its guilt, in the deUvery of a written paper by the Preaident to Gen^ ral "ThomaB, to be cpmmuuicated to the Seoretary of War, aud that offense, in these faded proportions, if contrary to a valid law, and if done with intent to violate that Jaw, may be punished by la fine of six cents. That is the naked dimen sions of a mere technical statotaty. offense, and if it 124 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. eonelnded wltbin the mere act of the dellrery of paper, unattended by ^r^re public coDirquences which sbould bring it into jndgttient here. Bat when we come to magniflcence of acbasatibb, as of tbe acen- Bation as founded dn page % vre will see wbat it is ;— "We suggest, therefore, that we aVe in tbe presence of the Senate of tbc^tTnited Stktei, convened as a consli- tntional tribunal, to inquire iuto and determine wbetber Andrew Johnaon^ becauae of itfalverKition iu offiee, is longer flt to rcitain. tbe offlce of Fresideut of tbe Xfnitcd States, Or nereafter to bold any office of honor or profit." On page 97 we come a little nearer, and I beg the attention of Senators to what is said there bearing upon tbis question:— "However, it may be aaid ttiat tbe Presidebt r.emoved Mr. Stanton for the very purpose of tealinartbe constitntionality of this law be fore the courta, andthe qnestion is asked, will yon con demn bim as for a crime for so doing? If ibis t>lea were a true oue, it ought not to avail, bul it is a i'q>)terfuge. We shall show you thai be has taken no step tb sub- ' m.it tbe question to any court, altbougb more than a year bas elapsed since the pasBasre of the act." Then on paeelOSwe are told:— "Upon the first reading of the articles of impeachmeii t tbe question might bave arisen in tbe miuds of some Seniiiors— Why are these acts of the President only prieseut^d by tb6 Hduse when history Informs us tbat ^others equally dungerbus to tbe liberties 6f the '^people, if not more so, aud others of equal usurpation of powers, if not greater, are passed by in silence! To auch possible ;inquii7 we reply, that tbe acta set out in the flrst eight articles are bbt the culminiitibn of a aeries of wrongs^ maifeasancea and usurpations committed by tbe respondent, and therefore, need to be examined iu the light of bis precedent and concomitant acts to grasp their ecoue and design." Then common fapie and bistory are referred to, confirmed by citations of ,'two hundred and forty years'cld itom tbe Britisb courts to show that there *are .good grbunds to proceed iipon. Tben, bringing tbis to a head, he says :— "Who does npt know tbat from tbe hour be began these, bis usurpations of power, be everywhere denounced Con gress, the legality and constitutionality of its action, and defied its legitimate powers, and for that purpose announced bis intentions and carried out bis purpose as far as he was. able, of removing every trae man from office wbo sustained tbe Coneress of the United ijtate ; and it ia to carry out tbis plan ot action that he claims this ultimate power of removal,' for tbe ille gal exercise of wbtcb he stands before yOu this day," Kow these are the, intentions oC pablic Inculpation ofthe Chief Magistrate of tbe nation, which arcjof snch great impprt from their intent and design, and from tbeir involving tbe pablic interests and tbe principles of governtaent, that they a^re worthy of the attention bf tbis great tribunail. If this evidence be pertinent nnder any ohe of the eleven articles, it is pertinent and admissible now. Tbe speech of August 18, 1866, is alleged as laying the foundation of tbe illegal purpose which culmiDated ^in 1S68. Thep;oiutof criminality which is made tbe '^ subject of the accusationi In these articles is the speech of 1868. So, too, a telcgrani to Governor Parsons, in Janiiary, 186gf, is supposed to be evidence as bearing upon the guilt completed in the year 1868. So, tgo, an ifitcrview between Mr. Wood, an offlCe-seekelr, and tbe President in September, 1866, is supposed to bear in evidence npon the question of mteuE in tbe cou- summat^ion ofa crime alleged to bave been committed in 1868f and I apprehend tbat in the question of time tbis interviiew between Geoeral Sherman and the Pre sident of the Uuited States on a matter of public transaction of tbe, President, cbanging the bead of the War Department, which was actaally completed in February, 1868, is near enough to that intent; and tb show tbe purposes of tbe transaction. There remalbfe, then, but one consideration as to whether this evidence is open to the imputation that it ia a mere proof of declaration on the ^art of tbe Presi dent concerning his intentions and objects In regard to the removal of Ur. Stanton. It certatniy is not limited " to tbat'forde or effect. Whenever evidence of tbat character is bflfeted thii question will arise, to be dis posed of on the very poiht aato What the President's r^bject'was, What'we propose to show isa cousnlta- tionwith tbe Lieutenant-Qdueral of theArmy ofthe tJnited States to in dace bim to takdtHe place. On tbe other qaestlon, as to 'whether his efi'orts were ^to create violence, civil war, or bloodslied, or even a breach ofthe peace in the removal of' the Secretary of War. we propose to eliow tbat in that ' s&me eonsulta- tion it was the desire of tbe President that the Lifetfc tenant-General should take the place, in order tbat n that change tbe Judiciary might "be gof to ^ecideftg tween tbe Executive and Congresa as to tbe consttoE tional powers of the fornier. If the conduct of the President ii reference to Ita matters which are made tbe subject of inculpatl^ and, if the efforts and means which he used in tffS ¦election of agents, are not to rebut tbe intcntioq^ of presumption sought to be raised, well was mj leained associate justified in saying tbat this is a vital que* tion— vital in theinterest of justice at least, if notTlcs to any important consideration' ofthe case* , It ifl vital on tbe merest principles of common |m> tice that the Chief Magistrate of the "nation is broujit under inculpation, and when motives are assiffned.fpi his action, and presumptioBS raised and inueKdott urged, we should bc permitted, in the presence of tiA great council sitting this day and doing justice to hiv asan individual, but more particularly doing J°&^ in reference to tbe offlce of the Presidentof tbe tJ^S^ States, ani doing justice to the great public questiow proposed to be affected by your judgment, to bave thii question properly decided. I apprehend tbat tbia learned court of lawyers and of I aytben will not permit this fast andlodsesamejil limited crime for purposes of proof, and of unlim^ crime for purposes of accusation. ..^ Tbe Senate bere, at 3<40i took a recess of flfteo mibuies. '¦ ^ After the receflB, Mr. WILSON, of tbemanagers, tofAJtte floor and said, I will :claim the attention of the Senafi^ ttg hdt a few minutes. My preaent purpose ia to get before Uft minds of Senators the truth in the Hardy case as Jtfifi from the lipB of the Lord Chief Justice who passed u the question which had been propounded by Mr. T and objected to by the Attorney-General. Itlr. Wilson's Arerament- Mr. WILSON read from the State Trials tbe decieiou to the Lord Chief Juetice to tho effect that dcclaratioiu a^ plying even to the particular case charged, though tbe & tent shoujd make a part of tt^e charj^e, are evidence ogahnst the accused, but are not evidence tor bim, becauee tlie principle upon which dedaratiohb are evidence, is that le man would declare anything against himeislf ^nlgp it ' were true, but any man would, if' lie,^,^Tn» in difficulty, make declarations for himself. . ' '¦ih ¦He also read the subsequent proceedings affb<;lc^a py ti»i decision and continued :— Now, what is the queBtiojOvluell haa been propounded by the counsel for the' Fresl^it ts General Shermanf It is thia :— In that intefvieVv' ^y'^ coii> versaiioQ. took place between the President and t^oa la regard to the removal of Kr. Stanton? Now I oontend that calls for just such declarations on the part ofthe I^ sident as fall within the limitation of the first branch of the rules laid down by the Lord Chief Justice in ib< Hardy caae, and therefore must be excluded. If thiscoft versation can be admitted, where are we to etop? Wflf may not he put on the stand and asked for conversatiooa had between him and the President, aa my affiociats su^ gests, at any time since the President entered upon,pQ» session of the Presidential office, showing the generftl 1* tent and drift of his miud and conduct ^during th^ J^^oto period of his-official career? and why, if this be cotdpetent and may he introduced, may it not bo foUowed by an at tempt here to introduce conversations occurring .betireeQ , the President and^ bis Cabinet and General Grant, by way ofinduciiie the,3enate, under pretense of tryihg the f * sident, to try a cf uestlon between the Gbueral of the Arjaj and the President of the United States? That interview occurred about the same time, and I siJk pose the next offer will be the .conversations occuisSM between the President, his several Secretaries and tbd General of the Army in order that the weight, the prep^ derance of testliuony submitted thereon, l^w tnalmay weigh down the General of the Army. I aay that thu may occur because it was a conversatioa which trauiouiu aboutlhat time. . ^ t-'^ Mr. BUTLER—Only the day before. v Mr. WILSON— Yea, only the day before. Wecertaii* must insist upon thi^ well-known rule being applied u this particular objection for the purpose of Ending roreva go far as this case is concerned, tbe mtroducftioii &£ the f^ clarations of the President, made, itmay be, fof^ p(v> pose of meeting this impeachment. l ' / V ' . It ia otfered to be provedt as the counsel itnfom} uh< 1 thePresident told General Sherjnan that hedesired^ to take possession of the War Department in order tbM Mr. Stanton might be driven to the courta of law fof the purpoae of testing his title to that office, and inaamucb ae the counsel have referred to the closing argument oL]^ associate manager, seemed to delight in reading therenrami let me read.a brief paragraph . or two from that opsnlDK «««i,..,-„„ *A *!,,¦ 4„„j'„j _; A ^jjQ presideatd "ito test hlati^ — - manager Said:~*The Pro^draj knew or ought to have known bis omoial advisw wW now appears as hia counael conld and did tellnim,doi^ less, that he alone as Attomey-General eould file an inw mation in the nature ofa .quo warra/nto, to determine 1^ queetioaof the valitUtVof thelaw." Mr. Stanton, if ejected from omce, waa wlthoui vmt^* IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 125^ because a series of decisions has settled the law to be that an ejected officer cannot reinstate himself either by fftw warrcvntq, maaida/mus or other appropriate remedy in the Aurts. Then the purpose was not the harmleas one of fitting the Lieutenant-General of the Army in tho posi. uon of Secretary of War to the additional end of having ^ludicial decision of this question, but the purpose was to ift possession, as wc bave charged, of that department for Ela own purposes, and puttingtbe Secretary of War in a poi'ltien whero he could not secure a jndgment of the courts Itpon his title to that office. Now, Ih^ coujuclto remem-, ber, not that we charge that the Preaident expected thathe could make a tool of General Sherman, but that be might oust Mr. Stanton from that office by getting General S.hpr- min to accept it, therebv putting Mr. Stanton in a position Shere he could not have returned to office, expecting and lUeving that the Lieutenant-General of the Army would not . long desire to occupy the position and would retire, and that then the Adjutaht-G«neral of tho Armv or some othet person equally pliant could be put into thia place vacated by the Lieutenant-General. Now, the Preifident did not succeed in that, and aaithaa been said, he appointed ou down until he came to Adju tant-General Thomas. Then be found the peraon who was willing to undertake this work ; who waa willing to nse force, aa he declared, to rget ppaaeflsion of that office. Abd now, with that proof of the President's own declara tion! and acts before the Senate, it is offered to make his Innocence apparent by giving in evidenc6,hip own declara tione at another time. If a case can be defended in this; way, no oflicer of the United S*"atea ean ever be convicted on impeachment, and if the same rule ia to apply iu courta of jnrtice, no criminal can ever be convicted for any of- lense therein, ifor the officer or the criminal may jnake his (rwn defense -by bis own deelatations. He wiU always- have one to meet bis case. Ido not desire to. detain the attention of the Senate. I am willing to let the case rest Hpon the authority shown by the leamed counsel for the President, for under it and by force of it this matter must be decided. The Tote. TheChiefJuBtice— Senators, the Chief Justice bos ex preaaed the opinion that the question now proposed is ad missible within the vbte of the Senate of yesterday. He Will state briefly the grounds of that opinion. The ques tion decided yerterday had reference to a conversation be tween tbe President and General Thomas after the note sd^eaaed to Mr. Stanton was written and delivered, and the Senate decided it admlasihle. The question to-day has reference to a conversation relating to the, same auD- ject matter between the President and General Sherman, which occurred before the note of removal was written. Both queations are asked for the purpose of proving the in tent of the President inthe attempt to remove Mr. Stan ton, The Chief Justice thipks that proof ofa conversation occurting before the transaction is better evidence ofthe Intent ofan act than proof of a conversation occuiTing after thetransaction. ' -- ^^ , ^^ ^The yeas and nays were taken on the quesuon, and tbe Senate excluded the queation by the following vote:— YlcAS.— Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden. Fowler, Grimes, Hen dricks, Johnson, McCreey, Morgan, Norton. Patterson (Tenn.), Ross, Sprague,, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickera, Wilfey-^23: ^^ „ „^ „ „ ^„ NAV8.r— Messrs. Cameron, CatteU, Chafldlcr, Conkling, Conness, Corbett. Cra^n, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fre- linghuvpeu, Harlan, Henderaon, Howard, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Nye, Patterson OT.H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Shermad, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Wflbams, WilaoH, Yatas— 28. ¦ \ - Examination Resnnied. Mr. STANBERY—Q. General Sherman In any conver sations with the Preaident, While you were here, what was said aboutthc l)epartment ofthe Atlantic? Mr. BUTLER— Stop a moment. I Euhmit that that falls within the rulft Just ibade. You. cannot putiu the decla- loitions about the fact. ,TheChJefJuatic&-The Connsel will reduce it to writing. Mr. STANBERY-I will vary it. Q. What do rou know about the creation ofthe Depart ment of the Atlantic? Mr. BlJTLEIUWehaveno objection to what General German knows about the Department of the Atlantic* Sovided he speaka froin his own knowledge and not from e declarations of the President. All orders, papers, his own knowledge, if he has any, do not amount to a declara tion. We do not obiect to it, although we do not see bow this is in issue and the Chief Justice will instruct the wi^ neas, as in the other case, to separate knowledge from hear say. I have no douht the General knows himself. These gentlemen askfor the Pfesident^s dec1arationB,not hia acta. TheChief Justice— Does the counsel for tbe President ask for the President's declarations? ' . Mr. STANBKRY— I may misunderstand the honorable ni|anager8„butIund«rBtamdthem toclaim that the Presi dent created the Department of the Atlantic a^ a part of his intent- bv miUtary force, to ouat Congress. Dol under stand me maaagerato abandon that claim? Mr.^UXLEK— I am not on the stand, Mr. Preaident, wlicn I,am Iwill anawer tho question to the best of my ability. The presiding officer asks the counael a queation which he doesn't aeem to want to answer. The queation put to him waa, do you ask for the Preaident'a deeiOra^ tiona? ^io Cbief jHstice— Tbe counsel for the Preaident tire Mked whether they ask for the atatements made by the President. Mr. STANBERY-We expect to prove in wbat manner the Department of the Atlantic Was created; who pre scribed ita boundaries, and what wasme purpose for which it was created. The Chief JuStice—Was it subsequent to the time of re moval or before It ? Mt. STANBERY—'^ do not know whether it was sub sequent ; it was prior I believe. *¦ The Secretary read the question by direetion of the Ghief justice. Mr. BUTLER—That deportment cau only be created by an order. The Chief Justice— Do you object? Mr. BUTLER— I object to it in every aspect; but first I obiect to any declarations by the President. The Chief Jnstice put th^ queation on the admlssicm of tbe question, and it was excluded. Mr. STANBERY-Q. I will aek you this queation. Did the President make any application to you respecting your acceptance' of the office of Secretary, oi War, ad interim. ? Did he make a propoaition to you; did he make an offer to you ? Mr. BUTLER— Is that question in writing? Mr. STANBERY— Yes, sir (handing a paper to the man ager). It is to prove an act, not a declaration. Mr. BUTLER— After consultation.^ 1 am instructed, Mr, President, to object to this, becauae indiirectly, in explana tion an application can bo made in writing or couver- sation, and then they wouldPtoe the written or oral de claration of the President, and it is immaterial to this case. i.^ Mr. EVARTS— Mr. Chief Justice, the grounds dllhe nn- derstanding upon which tbe evidence iu the form and the extent in which our question, which was overruled, sought to introduce it, was overruled because it put m evi dence declarations of the President, several statements of what he was to do or what he done. We offer thia present evidence as Executive action of the President at the time, and in the direct powder of a propoaed investment with office of General Sherman. Mr.BUTLER-HTo that we simply say; that that is not not the way to pAre Executive action. To anything done bythe Executivevwe do not object, but applicationa made in a clo|iet cannot be put in, whether upon declaration or Mr. STANBERY— Of courae, Mr.Chief Justice and Sena- tors, if we were about to prove the actual appointment of General Sherman to be Secretary ad xnt&nm, we must produce the paper. The order— the Executive order— thnt isnot what we are about to show. The offer wiu not ac cepted. What we' offer la not a declaration, but an act which waa proposed by the President to General Sherman, nnconnected it you please with any declaration of any ^- tention. Let the act speak for itself. Mr. BUTLER— Very weU; put in the letter. , , Mr. STANBERY— la it a question under the Statute of , Frauds, that you must have it Id writmg; thata tMng that niust be made in writing i& not good in parole? What we are about now is what we have not discussed as yet. It is an act, a thing proposed, an office, tender to a party. Gen. Sherman, willyou take the position of Secretaryof War, ad interim? Is not that au act? Is that a declaration merely of Intent? Is it not the offer ot the office? We claim itis not a declaration at alL It ia nqt declarmg any-' thing about what his intention is, but it ia doing au act. Willyou take tbe office? lofferit. Let that act speak for itself: Mr. BUTLER-Mr. Preeident, I do not claim any right to close the diBcussidu, but I will just call the attention of the Senator to this :— Suppose he did offer it, w^at does tiiat prove? Suppose he did not. What does that prove? If you mean to deal fairly with the Senate, and not get in a cod- versation under the guise of mtting in an act, what does it prove? If he' was trying to get General Sherman to take that oflice, it waa;an attempt to get Mr. Stantou out. If it was a mere act I would not object. The difficulty is while it is not withm thp Statue of Frauds, it is an attempt under the guise of an act to get in a conversation by direction of the Chief Justice. ., The Clerk rea^ t' e question, which had been reduced to writing, aa foil'' n^s: — Q. ''Did the Pi • sident make any application to you re- !specting,your acceptance of the dutiea of the War Depart ment oxLt'iiterim.t" ' ' The Chief Justice submitted the point to the Senate, and tbe question was admitted. Sherman Off'ered tbe War Office. Mr. STANBERY tqwitness.— Q. Answer the queston, if you please? A. The President, tendered rae. the office of Secretary of War ad intervm, on two occasions; the firat was on' the afternoon of January 25 and tiie aecond on Thursday, the 30th of January, in his own usiud office he tween the HbfarV and the clerk's room,, in the Executive Mansion ; Mr. Stanton Was then in offlce, as now. Q. Was any one else present then? A* I think not : Mr. Moore may have been called jn to show some papers,' but I thihk he w^s not preaent when the Preaident made mo the tender; both ofthem were in writmg; I answered tbe fest one on the 27tii of January ; I did not receive any eommu- Dication in writing from the President on thS subject ; the date of my firdt letter was the 27th of January. (Anqther qUestlon^was answered here dnaudiblj to the reporters.) Another Qnestion Objected To. Q. Kow referrmg to the time wheu the offer was first 126 IMPEACHMB,NT OF 'ANDREW JOHNSOlf. made to you by the PreBJdent,,did anything further take. ilace between you, in reference to that matter, the tender 5 ly him or the acceptance by you consuramate? Mr. BUTLER-That we object to. This is now getting into the conversations agam. Senators, I call your at-. tention to the manner in which the caae is eondiicted. I warned ,vou that if y , , ,' Mr. EVAUTS said thatthongb there was to be pore. vieW of thu proceedings of thie court, it was entirely colii^ Petent to bring to the notice of the court, Which waa tto Pass on questions of final judgment, the ^evidencp su> poaedtobe admiBsible, in order thatit nHEbtbenaade^ question of argument. He claimed that counsel had K right to do that, and that the difference betwee^n the ^j^, cine question now asked and the general question whicn was overruled was, that while a general conversatioa could nbt be admitted, the witaess mightbe permitted jto Iteatify upon the specific point. i* ». j ' w The Chief Justice directed that the question be reduced to writing. ,','¦,¦ ^ 'ikj^i The question having been reduced to wntang, wrs handed to Mr. BUTLER, who said:— | object tO .the mi6*f tion, As both outrageously leading in form, and aBinconp petent under the rule. . , ¦ ±. ¦¦ ,,. The question was, "In either of tboSe cOnyersatipni did the President say to you that his, object m appbmting yoti was that he might then get , the queation of 'Mr. Stanton's right to the dthce before the Supreme Court?" . , . .^ Senator HOWARD demanded the yeas andnayaupdb admitting the queation. The veas andnaya were ordered, and ' Senator DOOLI'JPTLB asked MT. Butler again to etita his objection. , , „ nf Mr, BUTLER aaid he objected to the question as ouV jngeously leading, and as bemg agamst the' ruling of tl]j|J, Senate. j^t* The vote was taken and resulted* yeas, 7; nays, 4^0^ follows:"— Jaa Yeas.- MeBsrs. Anthony, Bayard, Fowler, McCrepi;^ Patterson (Tenn.), Rosa, Vickers.' , ^, .j^. Nays.— Messrs. Buckalew, Cimeron, Cattell, Ghanm|Rf. Cole, Cbnkiing, Conness, Cerbett. Cragin, DixviB^lmma Doolittle, Drate, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fremw* huysen, Grimes, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Hovvarl, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, MorrilUMe.), Morrill (Vu), Mot^ ton, Norton, Nye, Patterson (N. H.);, Pomeroy, .Ramiffl, ' Sherman. Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, TrumMffl|l Van Winkle, Willey. Williams, Wilson and Yatea-iMiffl' During the call Senator JOHNSON askedfor the reading of the auction. The question being partly read. Senate; JOHNSON said that will do. I vote no. Senator DAVIS, having already voted, said uiat as tbe question was leading, he-would vote^no. ^r. STANBERY— Mr. Chief, Justice, this question wae undoubtedly overruled oua ma.Uer of form, audi piopoae t£> change the lorm. >. ,, ^ - . r: , ' The Queatlon In a New Shape. ' The queation, in a new form, having been handed to,13):. ButieiV . . , Mr. BUTLER said, the question aa presented to m^, Mn, , President ^nd Senators is, .'Was 'anything said at that cott- verSation by the Prcrident, as to any purpose of gettii* the q!.iestion of Mr. Stanton's right to the office before the courts?"' 'Now' Mr. Preaidentland Senators,, tbia ii tbe last questiop'. without its leading part of it. lab understand it I uih deratand it to be a very well aettled rule when counsel de liberately produce a queation, leading in form, .'and has it passed upon, he caunot afterwa,rd& withdraw the leading part and put the same question, without it. Sometimes $bu nllehas'bebn relaxed in favor of a very young coUnidt (laughter), who did not know what tbe question meant^ji havesecn very young men BO offending, but the cbuftl^ them up. Now, I call the attention of the prending officer counael for the President went on and inaisted not only in not withdrawing it, but iu having it put to a voto of tUl ^nate by yeas and nays. "^ If I had not called their attention to it, I agree tbat pei^ haps the rule might not be enforceds but I called their at tention to it. There are jfive genilemen, of the oldeat men m the profCBBion, to whom this rule was well known, thw chose to submit to tbe Senate a tentative question, and now they propose to try it over again, and keep the Seiiate V5)tiug on forms o£ questions untol its patience fs Wearisd put. Now, I haye had the honor to state to the Senate, a little whde ago, that all rules of evidence are founded en good sense, and this rule, too, is founded on good sense; It 18 founded on the proposition that counael ahaill not put a leading queation to a witneas to instruct him what ther want to prove, and theu, after tbe question ia overrule* to put the same question, without its leading form. Of course, that was not meant here, but I thmk that thr senate should not allow itaelf to be played with in thia wav. IiWt^^^^^^'^ 8ithei;e and have the yeas' and na^ caiiea, I can stay here as long as anybody^ TSf-i^fy^^^^^V*^";- CMef Justice and Senators*:- SA ftiJSS ^"^M^ ^^^ peJ',i"U» and responsible an issue and to6 important in jts roaulta to allow us to deHo^nd to auch *i J ?*&.^* 9*V^1''?™*V' Tbegentleman again saya I am an the **¦¦'¦ —-' ¦^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ .- .L_ ¦ V. *u»y, i»iiu pBpHoiajmy not ooiore tms ibodr: but tfie learned manager intimates. here that I have dehbetatoiy ?hrnil n^^J queation, reaorting to the low tactics of the Old Bailey Court for the purpose of getting tim^ making factioua opposition, I scorn any auch inthnatioZ He saya it is a leading question. Undoubtedly it is a le6d^ IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 121 big(lu0eUon;bntwaB it intended to bealeadiugqustionf "Was it mtended to draw General Sherman to aay some- udng which he would otherwise not have said? Jlto learned manager says :— Oh, no ; it witt not intended B«nac as General Sherman was concemed; put that ao far as counsel was concerned the purpose was to pot it In that tem BO that counsel might havo another opportumty of tnttlng it in a legal f orm. He charges that il waa deliber ately manufactured, m a leadmg form^ knowing thatit would be rejected, for tbo purtcwe of getting ten or fifteen miuutes time. A leading question, rir ; w ill the honorable nuiager read over tho record of thia case and aee hun dreds of leadmg questions, put by him, until we got tired ai objecting to them? I mw, oi course, be pennitted to disdaimany intention; this is & matterof great impor tance; the interests of our c^ent axe in our hands, and wo ai'e to defend them in the beat way Wc can. The qfestion was modified at Mr. EVARTS suggestion eo to read as followB:- "Was anything said at either of these mterviews by the President as to any purpose of getting tbe question of Mr. Stanton's nght to tbe 0ffice,b&- fore tlie courts?'' ^ ,. ^^ ^ - .^^ * TheChief Justice put it to the vote of the Senate, and tiie question w^as overruled without a division, and Se nator HENDERSON sent up in wntmg tbe following quffitjon to be put to the witnefla?. - ^^Dld the President, in tendering you the appointment of fiecretary of War ad in^trin^ express th* object or pur^ pose for.BO doing_?" ^r. BINGHAM— I object to that question a* being ^within thb ruling. It is 'both leading and mcompetent. The C^ief Justice said he would -submit the gueation to .ttie Senate. „ ' Senator DOQUTTLE arose and said— Mr. Chief Juftice, larosofpr the purpoae of moving that the Bflnato should go Into cofsultation oU this question, (cries of "no! nol"V, but there nught uot botlmC to-night to go into consultation, and I, therefore, move thatthe court adjourn. ¦ The motiou waa rejected Without a division. ' 'JJie vote was theataken on admitting Senator Hender- setfs question, and it was rejected. Yeas, 2^ ; naye, 37, aa tflows:- ' , ' Y«A8.-^liIeearB. Anthony. Bayard, puckalow, Davie. Dlxqn, Doolittle, FeaaeudeUv FoWler, Grimes, Henderaon, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Morton, Norton, Patterson (Tionn.), Roaa; Sherman, Sgraguo, Sum- net Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickera, WiUey— 25. Nats.— Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conk- Hug, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fr^imrhuyaen, Harlan. Howard, Harris, Morgan, Mok:nli court adjourn. The question was takeu by yeas aud nays, ftDa resulted— yeas, 26: nays, S7. Mr. STANBERY sent to Mr. Butler another form < After reading it, Mr. BUTLER said:- Weobjecttothia, both oa a leading queation and for substance. It has beett Toted ou three times already. Thequestion was read, as follows : — "At either of those interviews was anvthing said in reference to the. use of threata, intimidation os ibrce, to get possessioa of the War Otilcew or the contrary?" The Chief Juatice aubmitted to the Senate the admisal- bftity of the aiieation, and without a division it was ruled to^e madmiSaible. The Chief Justice asked the counsel for the President Whether theyhad any othorquestion to put to tbe witness. ¦ Mr. STANBERY replied that counael were conaldei-ing fhat poiut. Senator ANTHONY moved that the court adjourn, . Senator CONKLING inquired whether the managors meant to cross-examine the witness? MrTBUTLER replied that they did not The vote waa again taken by .yeas and nays on' the ques- aon of adjournment, aud it resulted— yeas, 20; nays, SSL So the court refused to adjourn. Stanbery DIacomfiteA Mr. STANBERY then arose and soldi— Mr. Chtef Jus- tlcc and Senators :— I desire tq atate that under these rulings we are not prepared to say that we have any fur ther questions to put to General Sherman, hut it ia a mat ter of^Bo much importance that Wo desire to be allCWod to recall General Sherman on Monday if we deem it pro^er.to ^r BUTLER roae and oomniemeed tq fl^bject, saying, we 'e very desiroiis tbat tho, examination of this witness luuld be concluded, but before he could eonelade the sen- teoce, Mr. BINGHAM roae and saijd :— We have no objection. The court then, at a quarter of five, odjn irued, ajid t he Senato unmediately afterwards adjomned. i; PROCEEDINGS OF ffiONDAY, APRIL 13. The court was opened in dne form, and the mana gera were annoanced aC 13'05, Meears. Bingham, But ler and WUllams outj appearing, Hr. Sterene waa In bis chair before the cenri was opened. Xh« otlier managers entered shortly afterward. vThe Tn-enty-flrst Rule. The Cbief Jnstice etated that tbe first bnslneee In order was the consideration of the order offered by Senator Frelinghnyeen, amendatory of Ksie 41. ae toUawt:— Ordered, That ae many of tbe maoazcrs of this court and Ihe • counsel for the President be per. mitted to spealt on the Unal argumsBl as shall choose to do so. Mr. SUMNEB— I send to the chair an amendment to tbat order to come in at the cud. It was read as follows :— "J^ovided, That the trial shall proceed witboat an^ fbrther delay or postponement on this apconnt," Mr, FHBLINGHUYSBN accepted tbe amendment Mr. Manager WILSOK rose and asked the in- dnlgence of the Senate for a moment. He said he cM not propose to contest tbe right of the Senate to adopt a rnle reasonably limiting debate os the final argu- ment of this question, in conformity with the nniTersal I rale in the trial of ciril actions and criminal indict ments. He was not here to oppose each a reasonable limitation as the interests of jnstice may require, as may be necessary to facilitate a just decision. H« thought, however that the rnle was calculated in some degree to embarrass the gentlemen sent here to eon- dnct this case cn ths part of ths people. Tbe House haying derolTed the dnty upon seven ot its members, in which tbey had not departed from tbe ordinary course, the effect of the rule would be to e»- elndefi?om the flnal debate on the articles submitted by them at least four of the managers. He was not opposed to a reasonable limit. It would hare beeu in accordance with the rule in regard t« interlocu tory questions, and would bare avoided diffuieness. . The Senate had aaid that the public cenrenieDU and the interests of tbe people required that a certi^ limit of time should be diylded among: the managera. The rnle did not meet wi^ the approbation of tha n^nagers in the firat instance. Thay thought it anu- esal, and tbey had directed their ebairmaa to ma|ce ti)is application. There had beea fire cases of in^ peachment before the Senate of the TJuited Scates. Mr. WILSON recited tbe circnmstances atteudlng each of the impeachments of Blount, Pickering, Chase, Feck and Hnmpbreys,. claiming that all these eases were analagous to tbe present. All the mana gers were allowed to sp^ak on the final argument, save in ope instance, where there were seven mana gers, and ono of them failing to speak, Mr. Randolph, tbeir chairman, spoke twice. Ee (Mr. Wilson) ntigkt: be mistaken, bnt thuueht the right of tbe Heuse of Representatives to be heard through all its managera had never been questioned. One caae in Britisb his tory was familiar to tbe acbaul-boy recollections of every; man in tbik nation, to who Is familiar with tba Eagnsh language — a case made memorable not as mnch by the great interjaste involved as by this fdEet^ that it was illustrated bj| the genlBS of the greateist men that Bngland had ever produced, aud that it ood- tinned for seven years. -^ In the latter respect he hoped this wonld not reeem- bleit; bnt it wonld be remembered tbat the labor in that case was distribnted amoagst all the managera. Tbe present case was not an ordiaarr one. Kothlng in onr history compared with iL They were making history to-day, and they shonld show that they ai- nreclated the msgnitni'e of the intorest involved. He felt the difflcnity of realialBg the magnitude rising tp the height of thia great arganaenl. It was not the caae of a district judge or custam-hoaae offlcer, bnt the Chief Magistrate of a great peuple, and its importanca was felt from sea to sea, whh MiliOSs of people watch ing for the verdict, Such a limitation should be ae- conntsd for in only one. Way, namely, that the case was of small consequence, oc that 11 was So plain tbat tha 128 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. rifcrAn judee reouired nb resejirjeb: andno arenmentifrom any body. " He bad not ib wh^t be ehid been rdoVed bv Any conMderfttion pereoaal to-bimseif. He had lived to a lime of life when tbe ambition to be heai-d did not reetlicavily apou.Jiim, or at all events he had lived too lon^ to attempt to press an argument upon an un- willinff audience. If they allowed an extension of ti'me, he did Dart of the respfthdent by Mr. Web ster, that two arguments Were mode bV the managers oa :.Uie part of the Hotise and onthe iiarc of the people of the Commonwealth, after .the cose of tho respondent had ¦ been abBoUitely oloied, both upon the evidence and upon thi,) arguments. I think the matter, needs ao further iUus- trationtd satiafy fhis tribunal that the castf of the —--^- ^caee of tho Houee of ReprCechtatlves, if this trial is to be'opened to fulldebate by gentlemen who represent the rewondeut bere, ought not to be left, after the close of the reff,pondoht, to^ a sln^o eonnsel on tbe part of tbe IOgusb'' of Eoprosentatives. ' ' ItXr. StRnbery'a Opinion. i/[T. STANBBHY rO^e and said i^hnf; tho counsc^ Ibr tb« President neither asked for nor .tefusod the oi^dcfur^ posed. Tboyhndno objectfon to all the soveii of the uianagers on the other sida arguing the case, but he uu> derstood the ameudment of tho Senator from Ohio fo fix a limit, whereas ih the rule in the timo allowed tor thecn^. ing up was unlimited. The rule only spoke of the nnmb" ofthe counael, npt ofthe time they should occupy. He L sired to call the attention of 1 be Senate to the ameiio^enl BO tliat there m%ht bo no miitundcrstanding. He nobj that not ono of t^e counael for tha Frosident had any losa of lengthening out the triaL He spoke as one competd^C to, know, and he knew that when the counsel wew ¦ through they would stop, and wowld. only take Is idacS tirae aa'they needed. They , knew that if .they went beii yond that thoy would not have the attention or tra' Senate. He could say thathe spoke for his assomateBfn, sayiuff that^hev wpuld not ta^ a moment longer in tOiB , case than they considered necessary. 'ITiey' would take every moment that was necouiry, but not ji moment thai was unnccc8s:irv. Uo referred to the fact that la the Supreme Court of tlKe United States when arguments are Htnitodto twohoiirS|, that limit jr frequently, in imeortant ca»ea, removed, and' he mentioned ouo case. whe^ BO, himeelf, hsid spoken for two days. -If counsel were limitea to an exact time, they would generally be embarrassed, because they were look ing continually at tho clock instead of their caHe, and weri afraid to begin an argument for fear thpy would exhani too much time upon it, and be cut off fromthe more in' portant matters in thecaee. In concluaion. he begged tbe- Seniito not to limit the time ; nays, 10— SB . Ykab.— Messrs. Buckalow. Cameron, Cattell, CbandlW, Colo, Cookilog. Conaess, OorbotU Oragln, D^ei £d- mhii IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON.' m «nQs, F^rryi FdBsenden. Harlmi, Hefidersnn', HendrickB, JlJfard, Howe, Johnion, Mpnill JMeJ, Morgan. MotriU CVt), Morton, Norton, Pattereon (N, H.ijPomeroy, Ram- fti ;"Eofla, Sherman, Stewart, Sttmner. Thayer, Tipton, . Doolittle, Fow- ., . _ ., Trumbull and yJUey-lO. . So the order and amendmetit were laid on the ta1}lo. Dttriug the vote. Senator ANTHONY stated that his flmlca^iie, Mr. Sbragile, was called iaway by telegraph to fttpnd the death-Dcdrof a friend. Oeneral SheriticLn Recalled- , X>ieRtenant:GenoraI W. T. SHermaii was then recalled to the Bt^nd. ' , Qiiestiou .by Mr. STANBERY-After the restoration of Mr. Stanton to the War Office, did you form an opinion as to whether the good bf "the service required another man in thatbflice than Mr. Stanton? , Mr. BUTLER— Stay a mohiont We object. We want ttie queS^n reduced to writing. Similar request of bim more ^an once, which be never oam£aied with. ' Mr. BUTLER-r-I ask.a thoi^sand pardons. The Chief Justice said that the ri^es required.questions Iftbo reduced to writing. , , , Mr. STANBERY aaid thai bisimp^esaiouwas tbat that was a request to bo made by a Seiiator, aud not by one ofme managers or one of the coUnseL '"nio Chief Justice. 'directed that the fifteenth Cule he BQnd, and it was read aa foUqwa ;— "All motions made by ihe parties or their counael shall ber&ddrcsaed to tho preaidipe pfhcer, and if he or any Senator EhalLrequire, they ^njoU be committed td writing and read at fhe Secretary's tahle.'V Tfio question, having' been jil^dpced to writing by Mr. Stanbery, waa read aa followa: — , "After the restoration of Mr. Stanton to office, did you form vn opmion whether the good of the service reqftired |L Secretary of War othor than Mr. Stanton, and if so, did you communicate thatoidnioh to the Frctiideut?" nir. BSnffliam Objects. Mr. BINGHAM objected to the queation, amd stated tho grounds of his objection, the &nt tew sentences of which were inaudible to the reporters,; When ho did become au dibly he waa underutood to say :->-It isnot to be suppoaed for a moment that thero is a. member of the Sonate wbo can entertain the opinion that questions of this kind, now preeentcd, under any poasible circumRtances could he ad mitted in any criminal proaecution. It must occur to tho Senato that the ordinary teat of truth cannot be applied to ft at all ; and in eaying that, it has no relation at nil to tho triithfumeBa or veracity of the witne«e. But thero ia no thiug on which tho Senate can pronounce any judgment whatever. Is the .SoQato to decide questiona on the (HpinlAia of forty or fif ty thousand men as to what might be for tho good of the service. The dneation involved iiercii a violation-of alaw ofthe land. It ia a queatiod of fact whicn is to be dealt with by witnesaea, and it is a queSUoil of law and fact which is to bo dealt with by the Senate. After giving his opinion, as !b propoaed by the qnestion, tho next thine m order woulde be his opiuion as to the application of the law, the restric tions of tiie law, the probibitinna of tlie law. • Who can suppose thatthe Sonate would entertain such questions for a momeut? It mtistoccar to the Senate that by ado{>t- ing auch a rule aa this, it would be imposailil* to liniit in- aiiiryor tocndtho inrestigation. If it be competent for lis witness to give his opinion, it is equally competent for forty thousand other men in tho country to give their opinions to the Seuate, and where ia the inquiry to end? we oluect to it as utterly mcompetent. Speech of Mr. Stanbery. >Ir. STANBERY— Mr. Chief Justice and Senators:— 0 ever there was a case involving the queation of idtent, arid how far acts which might be criminal or iniiitfei6d of tho service to put i^jStatftondi^t ? Is the Fresi- Stint, I say, to be held innoeeot, tbe^^re. In putting bim 130 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. -ib~ w, out? Can we go intq this origin ,ol^bjsopiuionr-I speak whoUy without reference to the witneas, ftnd upon general principles— we would have to ask General Sherman at to bis relations with Mr. Stanton; whether he quarreled with mm, and whether, those relations did not make him think fhat it would be for the goodof the service to get rid of bim? I-v Wc would have to aak Jilm, Is there not an unfortunate dimcuUyT3etwfienyou?,,If the Senate will allow opinions to go in, it cannot ^prevent onr going into tho various con siderationa wblch produced theae opiniona. It ia a. kind of inquirv into which I have no doaire to enter, and I pray tbe Senate not to enter into it, for the good of the country and for the integrity of thelaw. ' , . Another question Would hb, what were the grounda of General Sherman's opinions? We ahould have to go fur ther. We should have to call as many men upon the other side as we coulC If general Sherman i'i put in asan ex- lert, we would have to call GeiSeral.Shcridan and General JeorgeH. Thoraaa aud Geheral Meade, and other men of equal expertnow to say whether,- on the W"bole^ they dad not think it woidd be better to keep Mr. Stahton m? ,. I think that nothing can -mojre clearly demonstrate the fact that thia evidence canti'dt be' put in than the ground that GCnenJ. Sherman ison expert asan army, officer. If it is. We Will bave arrhy officer^, who, if not quite so ex pert, aro juat as much experts in the eye of the law as he, and the stru^le will be on which side the weight of evir, donee would be. The counael for the Preaident ^ay that they djSbr this to show that tho President bad not a wrong intent. There bas been a good deal a&id about intent— as though iutent had got to be provedby somebody swearing that the Fresideut told him he had a Wrong intent.- That aeema to be the proposition hero; that you muat bring some, mail #bo heard the President soy he had a bad iutent, or some thing equivalent to that. The quoatiou before you ia, , did Mr. Johnson break the law of the land by the removal of Mr. Stanton? TheA the law suppJiOB the intent, and says that no mau can do wropg intending to do right. , If it were a fact that Mr. Stanton should have been put ^jnt, would that juatifytho FreM'dent in breaking the law of the' land iu putting him out? Shall you do evil that food naay cbme? Thb questldb ia, not whether it were etter to nave Mr. Stanton out. On that qiieatipn Sena-. tora may be divided in opinion. Thete arte, for aught I know, and for auilht I care, many Senators here ivho iJiink it would be better to have Mr. Stanton out. but that u not the queation. Ia it right that tho law ofthe land BnOuld be broken by tbs Chief executive officer iu order to get Mr. Stanton out? See where you are go: cation fqr the President, or ai-_ break the law of tho laud. If hj See where you are going. It would be admitting justifi- ition for the Preeident, or any other executive officer, t( break the law of the laud. If haJsould show that he ^if what be thpught was a goodthiuf, buta'wickcd one. I am aware that executive officera hi " ' ' ' ¦¦ that idea. Let mo illustrate: jave often acted upon You Senators' and the Howe of Repfe^iajtativea agyaelng togeth,er as the Conereea ofthe United. StateSipaaaed a' law thai no man ahould hold Ji'paaaei of^cc m tiie Southern States who coiUd not tako tbe oath « loyalty. I am aware that the Preeident of the IJnited States put men intd\6ffice who could not take tnat bath, and at7 tempted to Justify that before the Senate and before the House, on the ground that he thought he waa doing the best thmg for tbe service. That was a breach of the law, andif we had time tQ follow out the innumerable things he has done ih that way and brought them, before the Senate, \^e coiild haye auatained articles of impeaohment ttpo^ them. One otber thing I desire to call your atten don to. We have heard how, over and over again, that Mr. Stanton would not have a seat in the Cabinet Cotmcil Since August 12, 1867. Wliofic fault was that? He attended every meeting up tb withiu a ^eck of August i^. He did his duty up to within a week of the lath of August, and he waa then bub> peuded until the 13th of January, and when hecanus back into office it waa not £&r the President to humble himself, but it wa^ for the President to notify Mr.Stantou, at the head' ofthe Wai* Department, to come and take his seat ia ue Cabinet, but that notification never came. It was not for Mr. SContbn to thruiit himself upon the President, hu% it WM for^hihl to go when bo^uuderBtood that hia preaence wo^d be welcome: 1)Ut It is put forward, as if the counfry eould not go on Without a Caomet Board, and tbe leamea counsel hoa juat'.told us that it was a constitutional board. On that I want to tike issue puce-for all. Senators, it i's an unconstitutional board. There ia not a word In the Conatitution about a Cabinet ;or aboUt a board. The leamed gentlemen have told us that a board was almost a Shield for the President, ana there bos been an attempt by somCdf the late Prealdfent'O friends to get this board around thehi to shldld theni from the consequences of their acts. The Coastitunon sM^'s that the heads of departments may be called upon in reference to their respective offi(^ to ^ve opinions in writing to the Preaident, and tbe r^ile of the early P^eiidenta Wa& to call upon Cabiuet officers for their oinnioha in writing. I ha-(o on my table hero aU opinion In writing, jgiven by Thomaa Jefferaon to Washington, about bis nght to ap- Soiut ambassadors. Hoada of departhiciDts are not tont own and consult with the the Prta^Cut; they aro not to have Cabinet Couni^elA ; that is an aanumbtiou of ex ecutive potter, which has grown uu Uttle by httle. formed upon the cabihefs of the old world. The framers of the C0natitntion well knew thatfrom fhe Cabinet coun>el9 in Ehglalid came that colebraccd word, "cabal," which has bvtiu tiujaynonym of all that is evil in political cbmbi- EkiitionBiroM that time to this, and it ww n^t mero jcapri. ciouaneas on their part that they required, not that t^ra sbould be verbal couBuWations semirweekly, and that lecret conclaves might bo held, but tbat there ahould H written- opinions askedand given. , i^ I'I Thiuk ofit. Picture to youraelvea. Senators, Prea|atot Johnson and Loren2;,o Thomas in Cabinet conaultation ffl shield the President, and of Lorenzo Thonaos atating «[ hto tbat it was for the good ofthe service,that be Shovir' isnot, bvthe way, a Cabinet oificer^ or it they Mte> right to put in the opinion of one bead of a departEiI|nV they have a right to pufi In flMotber. If permanent, then temporary. If temporary, then ad> vnt^rinu^ TfterefOTe,J find no dereliction of duly on the patt of Mr.StantbnJo not attending the Cabmet epuncils. • , Let tbem show that tbe Bresident bas ever askedmm m, stauton an' opinion, iu writipg, aS to the diitaos of lift department, or that he" has ever sent an order to bira'whica he has disobeyed, and, that will-flhpwa reason;, but JpisT the Senate not tolet tisgoin,to the regions of opinion. .| have taken tbis juucb time, Stoators. because I think k will feave time to colme ,to a right decisiqn^on this queitwn. This case is to b^' tried by. your opinion, not qjjty. opinion of anvbody whether Mr. Stantpn was a g^f>d «rw bad bfficer. ft isto be tried' upon the opinion whether tag Preaidont broke.tbe law in removing Mp. Stanton, and otr must take the cohaeqiidnces of that breach of th^ law-^^ It fs aaid thathe br^o the law in order to get the nja*^. into court. I agree in that, aud if his counsel is correia^ to the character of the Senate, the preaident has got tM matter into court, where he will bave tbe benefit of law. Proposition from Ssnator Conklins. Senator CONKLING submitted tbe following pronp*- tion in writing ^— Do the counael for tbe respondent omJr at this point to show by tho witness that he advised the Pre sident to remove Mr. Stanton in the manueiadoptBd by the President, or merely that headvisbd thoTreaidelit ft designate for the action of the Senate some person etaer than Mr. Stanton? Why the Lleuteiiaiit-GenftrHl , Is Introduc^edi ' Mr. EVARTS rhati and 8aid:-Mr. Chief JtiSHcdagd Senators:- I'donot propoae to diacuas the con-stitutiOiM relations of the Preaident of tbe United Statea with hisCabinet, noi* do I propose to enter into the conaidera- tii!»n'ef tho^meritsof thecosei osit shall be presented Km final argument. If the accusations against the .President of the United States on which be ia en triid bere, and ths conviction on which must reiult in his deposition ft'om hia groat office, turned only on tbe mero question ot whether the President has been guilty of a formal sioto! tion of a statute law, which might subject him, an* dieted for it, to a fine of six cents or iTuprisonment for tea daya, there might be some reaaon for -thoao' technical obtef- tions, but Ithink tha.tthe honorable manager CMr. Wi* llama) who so eloquently «nd warmly pre«6d upon yoiffl conaideration to-day that the caie of Warren Haatingi was nothing compared to this, was rather a little outof placb, if the trial isto tum on tbe mere formal tedmicai infraction of the Tenure of jQiffice act. Now, Mr. Chief' Justice and Senators* you cannot fail m sec that General Sherman is not. called nore aa an expert to give an opinion whether Mr. Stantion is a good Secretary of War or not. Ho is not callsdhere as an expert to asain ?'our judgment in determining wheths* or noLitwavfor he public interevts that Mr. Stanton should be removed in the senie of determining whether this form of remsval waa legal cr not. He is introduced bere as the second ia command of the armies of the Uuited Statesc ts show au opinion on bis part as a military jnan, aud in that position, that the railitary . se^vipe required tbat a Secretary Sshould take tho place of m. Stantou whose relations to the servico and to the Commander-in-Chief were not such ae those of Mr...Stai>- tou were, and that that opinion waa ooinmuuim|tsd;to thf President; and we ahajl enlarge the area by ahowiiui that tho opinioii Was concurred in by other corapetent mf Mtaryauthoritiea. And now, if the pFOBldent of tbe UnijM States, when brought on trial before a court of impcaclK ment, is not at liberty tp show that the acta which eM brought \a question aa against tbe public iutereat, and ta being done with a bad motivci to obstruct 'tbo law ana disturb. the public peace, if I say be cannot i^show, in bia defense, that in tbe judgnient of thos^ moat competent to think, most competent to advlad> mow reaponaible to thoi country^ In every sonaet for theii opmioB. and their advice, bow Is he to defend bim- Mlf? We propose to show that be was furnished jvitb those opimioua .and supported by those oplnionSi „lHow, Senatersj rofiisct ;. you aro taking part in a solemn traUtfoe- tion, which ia to enect, if yohr judgment be unfavorable, a removal of tho^.Chief Magistrate of the nation for spme aX- tempt?' whiob, be has made against the public welfosei with bad motives.and for improper purposes. We offer Ibo show you that on consultation, and deliberac tion, and advice from those who,' unconnected with any matters of pertonal or political controversy, occupied aoldv by their position, thmr duty and of that to thejrconnffy epaeted and desired to accompliaht the change. Woc4^ not, prove every thing at oiice \ nor ui it a,GriticiBm upon ihA testimony Just oxclnded that ^{t. does -not itself pro^«pll; but if it should he followed, aa 'H wauld be, by evidence of -squal authority and weightt amd ^< effopbi of th^ Pre.°id^nt or authority lo make efforts Mven by the Vse^ifinL w ee-: Cure a chan^ in thp control of that office, which the rer- vice of tbo couutry Uten deman^e4i we sbaA show y>^ IMPEACHMENT OFiiANDREW JOHNSON.. 131, by ata absolute negator^ .that' this- Intentton^ thia motlv^^- tbe public injury, ao vehemently and so pertinaciously Huputed in the course of the argimibnt— did not exiat at £qual Justice. ^Kr. BINGHAM arose to reply. And Was, as uBuiil, for tbe firSt sentonce, entirely intuidoble in." He went on to say, the I the reporters' ', gallery. igxesUon mads by the honorable (Mr. Conkling) shows the utter Ekniator from New York . ,.. „ , Incompetency and absurdity of , the proppsition. .It was Wbefner counsel for the President propose to aak a witness vrbether be advised the rembVal 'of the Secrptaryof War ^the mode and 'manner iu which the President did re move him, or attempted to remove hira? Is there any bne here bold enough to say tb^ if l^e witneas had formed an qpiniou agaiust, the legality of the proposition, and had so cnipreBBed himself to the President, j[t jwould be competent for us to introduce such matter in evidence? The reason,. Mr. Chief Justice, wby I arose now, is that I blight notice tho reply In the utterances uf the gentle man who has just taken hia seat (Mr. Evartt), and Who has enunciated hore the extra,brdiitary opinion that the ruloa of evidence which would govern in a court of justice, Jn tho proaecution of a beggar arrested in your streets for a-crime, punishable with nue or fiVc houra of imprison ment, aro not the rules of evidence which would hold good when you come to prosecute the Chief Magistrate ofthe nstipn. The American people will entertam no opinions bf fhatsort, nor will the Seuate. We have the same rules of jusjilce and the game rules of guidance for tho trial of the Pr^Bijleut of the United States, as we have foi- tbe trial of faejoiost defenaeleaa or weakest of our citizens. '. Mr. EVARTS— The nbnorable raanagers will allow me fo say tbat tbe only iUustration I used, was that of an In- jLictment againat the Chief Magistrate pn trial before a po- ^se epurt. > Mr. BINGHAM— I supposed myself that when the gen- iloman made use of the remark,, ne intended, cortaihly, to have the Sonate understand that there was a different rule of evidence and of admiliiatration— of juatice, ih fhe jroaeeutiou of an mdlctmgnt where tho penalty was six f^nts, from that which abotldd prevail in tho proaecution bf the Preeident. Mr. EVARTS-When the issues are different, the evi- Oonce will be different. It does, uot depend on the dignity of the defendant. .!',.', Mr. BINGHAM— It Ii Very difficult to seo hoW the gen tleman can escape from the difficulty by making the re mark tb^ he supposed the Preaideut to be under proaecu- wou.' It is a very grave queation whether the Preaident of the United States can be prosecuted for an indictable of- Ceifflo before hia impeachmmta; butl d» not atop tq argue that question now; I do not care who is prosecuted on an tndieuueut, whether the President or aibesgar, the same rulo pf evidence appliea to each. I do not care who is im peached, whether it be the Presidjept of iho Uuited States or tbe lowest civil officer in the service of . tho .United States, the aame rule of evidence obtaina. Only the com mon law maxim, that where an offenae, is charged which is unlawful in itself and which ia proved to have been committed, aa I venture to say, have been prpved in respect to all of thero articlep. The law itself declares that tbe intent wai criminal, and it is for the ac cused to show justification. That ia the lauguage of the books: 1 soread it m the volume before me. The legaUty of the Preaidgut's conduct ifl' not to be solved by -opmions of the witneiwea but by thjC judgment of the Senate, to the exduiion of any. other tribunal of earth, for so it is writteu m tho Coustitution. The law ima the judges of the law will determine whether the act waa unlawful. Opinions rPf third, partiss, al though ever so ' pften offered and expreaapd, cannot make an unlawful act lawfii;!, and cannot ged rid of the intention whush the law itself necosaarily attaches to the bommisflion of an unlawful act. Well, say the gentle men again, the President baa taken the advicp of an hon ored and honorable genoral... The Cofastitution, as the Senate well know's, indicates who shall be the President's advisera in such a cose aa this, the removal of the head of a departineht. That Gonatitution.expresaly declares that he may i^potut and thereby neceasarily remove an' in cumbent by and, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tenure ^of offico ict followiug tbe . Conatltutioni provides further that be may for sufficient reasons to faim appearing, suspend an incum bent and take the advice of the,, Seuate, laying tbe facts before the Senate,, and, the evidence 6a which he acted, whether the suapebaion should b'e made absolute. The I^resident did take the, odyicoof the Senate, and did sus pend thm officer, whose removal he' now undertakes tp prove the public service required. He sent itto tbe Senate and the Senate, as bia constitutioual adViaor, acted upon It, and gave him notice that . it adviaed' bim not to attempt any further interference with t^e Secretary for tbe Do,- partment of War^ Tbe Senate e&ve him notice fiiat under tho law he must not go a atep further, and {hereupon bc fidls back nponh^reaecTedncbts, and un- 4e;$akes,to defy tbe Coa«titutipp, to defy the /Tenure ofOffio^ act, to defy thp Senate aud to remore the fere tory pf War, and make an appointment of anothei; in hn place without the adrice and consent of ^tl^e Senate. ']Sx- , -cept suc^ outsiders aa he choaps, to , call into his cohn^el now, Ue undertakes to justify his acts by having Witnesaea to swear to their opinions. We proteat agafiuc in th6 uame of the Coustitu tion ; we pro^st against' U in the name of the laws enaeted in parauanee.lof the CousfcUu- tion : and we protest againat it in tho name « that groat people whpm we ihis dsjrepreaont, wbojae rights have jbeen outrageoualy betrayed, and wbo are now being au- dociqu^y defied" before iSiia trlbiilial. Th'esmia,te proceeded td ydt^iby 'yeas aud uays upon tne adinission ofthe qucMtion, as fpUows:- "After the restoration of Mi*; Stanton to Tomee, ( form an opinion whether the go6d of the servicer a Secretary of War other than Mr. Stanton, and 11 you communicate, that opinion to tho Preaident?" Tbe Final Tote. The vote reaulted, yeas, 15 ; , nays, 85,- as follows :— Yeas Mesara, Anthony, Bayard, Buckalev^, Dixton, Dbolittle, Fowler, Grimes,, Hendricka, Johnson, McCreerjsi Patterson (Tenn.), Roas, Trumbull, van Winkle, VickoES Nats.- Measra. Caraeron, Ciaittell, Chandler, Cole, Confc- llngi) Connbas, I Corbett, Cragini, Davie, I>rft.ke, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden. FrelinehuyBen, Harlan, Henderaon, Howard, Harris* Morgftu, MorriU (Me;). MorriU (Vt.), MoS- torn Norton, Nye, PauierBon (N. H.), Pomeroy, Ramsifeyi, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Williams, , Wilson and Yates--S5. So tho queation was not admitted. Another Mooted Qaestloi^ Senator JOHNSON proposed to ask the wituess tbe ibl^ lowing question :— • "Did yoii at ariy time, and when, before' the Preaid^t gave the order for tho removal of Mr. Stauton, aa Sotlre- tary of War, adviae the President to appoint some other person than Mr. Stanton?" Ml', BUTLBR'-I havo the honor te object to tbe qnes tion, as being leading in foim, andaa being covered by t£^ decision jiiat made. Mr. EVARTS— Au objection to a quentlou as leading hi form cahoot be made when the question b put by a mem^ ber of the court. Seuator DAVIS inquired whether one of the manaffers or of the counsel for the defefise could intcrpoae au objjJC* tiontoaqu^efjtiouput bya member of the court. BXr. Butler Suatained. . . i.The Chief Justice ruled that ths objection muat bo mode by a merabciF of tho coflrt ' . , Senator DRAKE renewed the objection. The Chief Justice said the only mode iu which tim question can be decided ia to rule whether It is adirilasibfe or inadmissible. Tho aueation of the Senator &om .Mary land has been proposed unqnestionablv in good faith, and it is for the Senate to determine whether the qnestion shall be addressed to the witness or not. The vote w^ taken by yeas and nays, and resulted— yeas, l^i naya, m, aa follows:— ^ .' .. .Yeas.— Mesara. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Dixcp, DooUttlq,.'Edmund3, Fessenden. Fowler, Grimes, Hencter aon, Hendricka, Johnaon, McCreery, Patters'on (Tonn-J, Ross, Trumbull, Van Winklo, Vickers— 18. Nayb.— Me»rs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cojo, Goute- ling, Cohnesa, Corbett, Cragin, Davia, Drake, Ferry, Fr(> linghuysen, Harlan, Howard. Howe, Morgan, Morrifl ^le.), Morrill (Vt.), Morton. Norton, Nye, Pattersdu (N, H.>, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Thaypr, T^ ton, Willey, Williama, Wilson, Yates- 32. So the question was exclildc^. Senator Sifinner, though in hia seat, did not voto on eltiier ofthe lo-^t two queations. The Chief Justice asked thp President's counsel whether tbey had any further' qupatlbna to propoae to the witness. Mr. STANBERY ropliid that they had not. The Chief Justicolhen inquired or the managers whether they propoaed td crosa-examine General Sherman. , Mr. BINGHAM replied, that they bad no questions to ask the witness. < ', ' . The Chief Justice inniiired whether the counael for tba President would, i^equfre General Sherman to bo again colled. Exit Sherman. Mr. Stanbery steuped up te General Sherman and bad« brief conva-aatiou with nira; and Mr. Butler, alao stepped ^teen mmutes. Testimony of R. J. Meiffs. After the recess, R. J. Meigs waa called and sworn on be* half of the President, and examined br .Mr. STANBERY: Q. What Office do vou hold? A. Cleric of the Supr&ne Court of the District df Columbia. Q. UerkofthatcourtinPebruarylast? A. Yea^ sir, Q, Have you with vou tho affidavit and warrant tmder wmch Loronio aTioinaa was arrested? A^ Yea, sir ipm>- duciuK papers)'. , „, . . . ' »' ¦Q. Tho origiriol paper? A. The onginal paper. " Q. Did you affix tho seal of the court tb the appointmenff A.Ti did. Q. On what day? A On the 2Sd of Febraary last. Q. At what boirf of tho day? A It was betweea tw> and three o'clock on tho merniue pf that day. Q. At whatpiapo? A At the Clerk's Pffice. Q. Who brought that warrant te you? A. I d'ou»t know tho e&utlein&ta Who broint Ifi to me; be o^idbe was ¦a member 6f Congress. Mr. PILE (Mo.i-Q. He brought it to your house at tbat hoUr of the moming? A Yea, sfr.' 0. And'you went thon to the Clerk*s offlee? A. Iwmt totfaeCleil " ^-«- .".-. .. 3 Cleik's office and affixed ttBd seat' 182 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW- JOHNSON. , To whom did you deliver f3u wiHTant. ^ .Jr. PILE-Q. Tho Marshal was npt there at that time? A.T!lfo,Sir. ' J. HaveyougotthewaflrantttMiM? A. Yet, eir. ;. Did yon bnng tiio affidavit upon which ft was nded, or did you get tbat afterwarda? A I bcKeve I ye got all thopopers, , \ la that the affidavit (showing paper)? A. That is the davit. ,, , , ^, ^Mr.BgTLEB. [After exaraining the pawr.} Mr. Pi-eai- d^d, before the counael for the fnreadeut oner the affida vit and warr'aut in evidence. I would like to ask the wit- nessa question, if it ia iu order. XTo the witness.]-^Q. You sav you affixed the seal about two o'clock in the morning, if I (mderatend you? A. Between twd and three o'clock in the morning. ' _Q. Yoi^ were called upon to get up and do that A. I ^. And in a cose where a great crime is coraraitted, and When It ^3 necessary to stop the further progresa of tho crime, that is not iinusual. A. Where it was neceesary to prevent a crime, I have . done the same thing, m habeas Oarpns casea and iu one replevin cAe, I think. Q. Wliere it is a matter of consaquence, do you do tbat ? A, Yea, air. •^ ' > veu been often caUcd upon ip ao it ? A Only in extreme comi. Mr. BUTLEE— I have the honv to object to the war rant and affidavit of Mr. Stanton. I Ao not thiuk that Mr. Stouten can make teatiraony againat the President or for him by any affidavit he can put m any ca'oceediug between ham and Lorenzo Thomaa. I do net tniuk the warrant is relevant te this case in auy fosm. The fact that Thomi^s wa^ arreated can ba shown, and that is all. The af&davit opan which he was arrested ia certamly res inter alias. Vliat IB a matter hetween Thomas and thePresident, and this is between Thomas and Stanton ; andHn no View la it pertment or relevant to this, caset' or competent in any iQcni* so far as I am instructed. Another Leffal DIscnasSoB. Mr.' EVARTS— Mr. Chief Justiet the arreat of General Thomas has been showu in Uie teatimony, and they argne,' I tfalnkj iu their opening, the intention to ¦ use force te take posaeseion of the War Office. We now propose to shrtw what that arrest waa in the form and substance bythe authentic documents of it through the wiu*fant and the fttndavit on which it waa baaed. The affidavit, of course, does not prove the foots stated in ft, but the proof of tbe afiiuavlt ebows tbe fact upon which, aa a judicial founda tion, the warrant proceeded. We then propose to foDow this opening by showing how it teok placo, aud how tbe effort! were made iu behalf of Creneral Thomas, by habeas corpus, to force the question te a determiiiatibn in the Su- prqine.Court of the United States. ^ Mr. BUTLER— I uUderstond, if thia affidavit goes In at sdl, it ia tben evidence of all that ia stated, if they hove a Fight to put it in. Mr. EVARTS— You have a rightto your ownconaluslons from it. C Mr. BUTLER— Not from the conclnaions; bnt I think mrthing more clearly shows tbatitcannot be evidence than {hatlact. Now thia was not an attempt of tha Presidont to tet thii? matter before the coui^ ; It waa au aflrempt of Mr. tapton to protect himself from violence which had been tbr^tencd before. Tbi8waamadoatnigbt,ifwemay judge from the evidence of the threats made to Wilkeson aud Burleigh, and the threats mode at WiUard's Hotel: being ihforiiied of it, he did uot know at what hour thie man might .bring bis maaqheraders upon bimj and thereupon he tried td protect himself. How that relieves the Presfdont from crime, because Stanton arreated Thomas, or Thomas arn»ted ^tauten, is luore than I can see. Suppose Stantou bod not arrested Thomas, would it show that tbe Presi-^ dent is not guilty here? Suppose he did arrefit him, dbesit mow that he is guiltv? Is is not res inter aiiaa—aeta doue by otherparMesf Wo only advertisd to the arreat to ahow what effect it ba€.upon bi» crirae. Mr. EVARTS— It haa already been pnt in nroof by General Thomaa that he went lo tho court upon this ar rest. He aaw the President, and ho told him of hia arreet, •^and that the Prefident immediately replied that that was as he wished it tb he. TheuuMtion m the court how. I pi-oposete show that this is' the question that waa in the court, to wit, il^ queation of the crimiBality of a person aa>used under this Civil Tenure act, and I tben propoep to sustain the answer of the President* and also the sin cerity and substanee of this statement, already in evi- denoe, that this proeaeding. havlcLg been comiltienced, aA it was, by Mr. 'Stantou againat General Thomas, was iuunrdiately taken hold of as the sppcdlert and most rapid mdde through a habeas corpus, in which the President or Grcnoral Thonuua, acting in that behalf, would bo the actor, in order to bring at once.bpforo tbe Supi^me Court of tho district the question of the Validity of nis arrest and cou- ^ement under an act clahned to, be uuconatitutiotaal, wlt|i ao immediate opportunity of appealing to tbe Su- prorae Court of the United States tueuia session, from wiiich at once there could have been obtained a determl- tratibn of the qHcation. . Mr, BUTLElU-Whciuver that is proposed to be tShovm, I iJCopose to show thJit Thoraaa was discharged ttom arrest upon motion by his own counsel, and, therefoi'e, the Senate will be traveling into the quetftipa of various facts taking placo in another court. I havo no(, yet heard any of the learned counael aay that tfals does not come within UfQ role of rea mter aUae facts done between other parties. Mr. EVARTS— I did not think it necessary. Mr. BUTLER— Perhaps that would be a good sn^^; but whether it is neccasary or nbt, ia it not so? Is there a lawyer anywhere that dpea not underatand and does not'- know that proceedings betwewi two other persons, after a crime r was cprnmit^d, were never yet ^roug^ynto^ case to show that the cnme was not committed? Jm he see that affidavit ? .Never. -Did be know what was Ju it f No All ho knew was tbat this man waa carried into court under a process. He neyer saw a papbr.' He did not know what was the evidenbe; hut Thomaa went and- told bim "Thiey boVe arrested me," He said, "TnaVa wberelwahtittbbe^inthecoiii'tB." . '_' Thia affidavit of Mr. Stanton is excellent readiitf. ' » shows tho terror and alarm in thia good Diatrict of Cohin*., bio, when, at night, meu well known t,ohb men of conti' nency and sobriety, .representing important dutricts ih' Congress, saw it was their duty to call upon tbe Judges ef the Supreme Court, to ball tbe venerable Clerk of the' Court, out at night to get a warrant and tak^ immediate moans to prevent the consummation of this crime. ' Iif ehowaithe terror and alarm that the unantiiorized, illegal' and crimiual acts of this respondent created. That is au in it. Undoubtedly that is all In tbe affidavit. Undoubtedly all that can be shown; and tben we hav^' before the Senate tbis appeal to tbe laws by Mr. Stanton, which this respondent nov6r aakod either before or sincek although furnished with all tbe panoply of attack or d&i fenao in his Attorney-General, he never brought a writ of QUO warranto or any process. AH. tbat might appear ; we should be conapelledT to have it in, provided it does Boi- open up into regions of unexplored, uncerti^in, diffuse, ixa^ oroper evidence upon collateral iaaues. If ypu ave peafty to go into it, I am, but I soy it doos not belong to this caye. I think we can make quite ae much of it as they can, biw it ia uo portion of this case. It is not tho act of tbe Prea© dent ; it has nothing to do with the President. The ^ei dent never aaw those papers ; it is not evidence. Wn., Stanton and Thomas did, they themaelves muat answer. ' . Mr. STANBERY— Mr. Chief Justice and Senatom:^ There ate two grounds iipon which we ask the admission bf thisovideuco. Firstotall, it is claimed by the manajters ^oinwbatis alrdadyin evidence— mark, tbat already £a evidence of tbo declaratipn of the President— that he made thp removal to bring the question of that law to tbecoirtdi- eration of the courts. Thatia already in evidence; but ad tp that the managers say, that js all a pretense— a subter^ Mr. BUTLER— Where in evidence? Mr; STANBERY-^n the speech ef the honoraMe mana ger who opened this caae. Mr. BUTLER-If you put my speech in evidence I have no objeetiou, Mr. STANBERY— Aud here the gentleman bos repeated that this is all a pretense, that it ie a subterfuge, an afteiP- thOiight, a mere scheme on the part of the President to avoid tho conaequencea ot an act done with anoth^ ini tent Again upon bis mtention with regard to the occupa^ tion of that office by General Thomas, they have sought td prove tha.t the intention^ Of the Preaident were Uot to ap^ peal to the law; but to uae threats, intimidations and fbveei and now all the declarations of General Thomaa as to ttm purpose pf intimidation or force tbe Senate has admittro in evidence against the Preaident, ou tbe mere declarations of Thomaa of nia intentions to enter that office by force er intimidation, and thoy ore to be considered as declaratbrns of the President. If th(S gbutlemen think thati was sought by the res pondent, the prorapt arrest of General Thomas thd next morning was the only tbiuK that prevented the ae- complianment of the puruoSe that waS in the mind'of tlie President aud General Thom-os. Who calls that a subterfuge? Now wo wish to show -by tbia proceed ing, got up at midnight, aa the learned manager 8ay& in view of a great crime just committed, or about to bo cominitted; got up under the moat pressiug neoeBSitVt With a judge, arf we will show, aammoned from bid bed at an early hour on tbe moming of the 32d of FelM- ruary, aa though it Wna an urgent and pressing uecessiiy, either pretendpd «r real on tbe part of Mr. Stantou to avoid the use bf forco ahd Intimidation m hia removal fi'om- lihat office., We^h'all ahow tha^t when tbey had got him a)^ rested tbey fixed the time of the trial of the great criminal for the nejct Wednesday— all this boiag dono on Saturday"; that when tbey got there they had got no criminal and the Pounscl of General Thomaa aayi-^'Hois in custody— w| surrender him— we do this for the purpose of getting a ha«> beas corpus." It was not until tbat was announced tbat they act. Tbe coi^Bsel for Mr. Stanton say that this great cnminal hod been kept iu bond for good behavior. We expresply con sent not that ho aboulddve bonds fbr bia good behavior, but that ho sbould beabsblutely discharged and go free; not bound over to keep thb peace, but wbblly diacharged; and, aa wc shall show you, discharged for the very purpose of preventing the prompt action orthe habeas corpus, that the coBo might be got imihodiatoiy to the Supreme Court of the United States, the only body lu which a dacisiea jpould be reached. . Senators, ia not that adraisBible? Mr. BUTLER— Mr. Preaident, Idbnot meantotrotftete tbe Senate with more than one &t two statements. Firei it is said tbat Mr. Thomas was discharged wbclly. That depended upon the Chief Jbstice of tbat court. If -we art going to' try bim by Impeatibmeitt wait unt^ after we get through with this case. One trial at a timo is suffiei^]^ becauBo bedld his du^ under the eireumstances, and Mh Stanton, nor you, nor anybody else, has any right to eon- deinn the act of that judge until be is here te defend bfica- IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 133 self, alfd the Cbief Justice of tbe Supreme Court is amply dble to do it. Then thore is anottier point which I wish you to tike into consideration. *'Ab to tbe claim that Thomaa bad 1»- como a good citiaen." I have not agreed to tbat, and I do not believe that anyboE^ elae has; He himself says that on uie next morning he agreed to remain neutral until th^ took a diink together. That next moming be agreed to stop and take a dnnk and remain neutral. (liaiigbter.) •Mr.^TANBERY— Then Stanton took a drink with the ••great criminal?" _: Ti&. BUTLER-He teok a drink with ttie Preaidont'fl •^ol," that's all. The thing vvas settled. The "poor old man" came and complained tbat he hadn't had anythmg toeat or drink, and in tender mercy, Mr, Etecretary Stan ton gave him aomothing to drink. He nya from that hour henever bad any idea of force. Now I want to coll tbe attention ot the Senate te another fact, and that la, that l^ey did not tell him to keepthe peace. He aaid be was not told to keep the peace. H^ said It /was neceaaary for hhn to make that point, and he said that the judge told him, **ThIa don't iuteriere In auv way with your duties as Secretary of War." But there is still another point. This "nucenatitetional law has been on the statute books since a ^eor ago laat month, and the Iearued Attorney-General, who Bits before me, baa never put in a auo warranto. BCr. STANBERY attempted to soy be hod prepared a MiaiDaTranto. Mr. BUTLBR.-I have never heard of It, but it wiU be the first exhibition that waa>ever made before a court of the United Statea. Where ia there a (j^io warranto filed in ainy court? Where ia the proceedings taken under it? And I put it te bim as a lawyer^ did he ever take one? He ia ^0 only man in tbe United States that could file a gua warraiilo, and he knows it. He ia the only man that could initiate this proceeding, and yet it was not done, and he oomes and talks about putting tu Qie.quarrela of Mr. Stau ton and . Geueral Thomas, which ore res inter aliaa in tius matter. . - l:bey have nothing more to do with this ctae than the •'¦ftct which the President, with the excellent taate of his camisel, put in evidence againat my objection that Mr. Stanton had, wheu this man was Buffering from waut of his breakfast, given bim a drink.' Tha onor of the affi davit, &c., was put iu i«riting, and read by the Clerk, and tiie Chief Justice was understood to decide that itwas admissible. . Mr. BUTLER.— Does your Honor understand tbat tbe affidavit is admitted? The Chief Justice— Yea. , Hr. BUTLER— I heard one, Senator a^ for the question. ' The Chief Justice mquired if any Sbnators asked fir the question, and Senator CONNESS replied in the affirmative. The Chief Justice etated the question to be on the ad- mfaslon of tbe affidayit and warrant, and they were ad mitted by tbe following vote:— YxAS.— Messrs. AnUiony, Buckalew, Cattell, Cole, Cor bett. Cragin, Davia, Dixon, Doolittle, Fcasen den. Fowler, - I^elinghuysen, Grimea, Henderson, Hendricks. Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (vt.), Morton, Norton, Patterson (N. H.), Patteraon (Tenn.), Pomeroy, Boas, Shorman, Sumner, Trumbull; Van Wmkle, Vickera, Willey, Williams. Yatea-83. Nats.— Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, ^0, Ramsey, Stewart. Thayer, Tipton, Wilion— 17. rhe papera were thon read in evidence. Mr. STANBERY-Q. I aee this is the Judge's warrant' at Ciharabers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you in the habit of keeping any records other Chan filing the papers or did you make any recorda further tt^AQ-fUing tho papers on that proceeding? Witnesa was understood to reply in the negative. Q, Has this -defendant been discharged? Ur. BUTLER-That appears from the record. Witneaa— The record snows that; tho docket shows that ••-4410 docket of the court ; the lecognizouce of the couri Bh^WS It. , * ^Q. Do von moke no record of tfaoio papers? A No, sir; diey ore filed. .. Have you got your dodcei with yout A. Ko, sir; uxesubpoena did not require it.i nfitr. STANBERY— (as the witness was leaving tko stand.) Q. Will you bring this docket that contams thia evidence? A..Yes,air. Mr. BUTLER-Q. WUl you not extend the record aa far « you con, aud bring up a certified copy of this case? A. MWf nr. Reverdy Johnson Pats a Question* Mr STANBERY then called Mr. Jamea O. Clephane. hut Senator JOHNSON aent to tho Chair the followmg auestion to be put to General Sherman, who tben reaumed le Btand :— „J3. W^ien the Preaident tendered to you the office of Secretary of War ad interim, on the a7tb day of January, X86& ^nd onthe Slat ofthe same month and year, did he, at the very time of making sucb tender, state to you what his purpoae in so doing was? Mr. BINGHAM objected to thn quoation as being Incom- pel£nt within the riiKng of tbe Senate. TheChief Justice put tbe question to thp Senate on the . admiaejos, and it was admitted by the following vote :— YBAft— Mesars. Anthony, bayard Buckalew, Cole. Davis, Pixon. Doolittle^ I ley-ao. Nats— Messrs. CJattell, Chandler, Conkling, GoniMB> Corbett. Cragin. Drake, Bdrhunds, Ferry, Harlaiu HowardJtXow«, Morgan, Nye. Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewaitt Thayer, TiptoH. Williama, Wilson, Yates— 33. The Seoretary read the question pnt by Senator -Johnson? A. He atated to me that hia purpoae — Mr. BUTLER— Wait a moment ; the question is wbetbai he did state it, not what he aaid. Witeeas— He did. Mr. STANBERY— What purpose did he state? Mr. BUTLER-We object. Mr. President— The counsel bad diamiaaed thia wittipsBk She Chief Justice decided that it was competent to i8» the witness. Senator JOHNSON— I propoae to add to the questioiM^ If ho did, what did ho state his purpose was? : . Mr. BINGHAM.— Mr. President, we object.' We aak tfie Seuate to answer that. The last clause— wbat did the President say?— is the voir question.upon which the Senate solemnly decided adveraely. The last clause, now put to the witness by tbe honorable Seuator from Maryland, ia. What did the Preaident aay?— making the President's declarations evidence for himaelf. It waa said by my as^ sociate, iu the argument ou Saturday, that if that method were pursued in the administration of juafice. uud tl^ declarations of the accused were madeevidence for hiu^ self at hiapleasue, tbe administration of juatice would be Impossible. Senator DAVIS— I rise to a queation of order. It is that the learned manager haa no right to object to question pio- nounced by a member of the court, Mr. BINGHAM was proceeding to discuss the point, when be waainteiTuptedby t . The Chief Justice, who said that, while it was not com petent for the managers to object to a member of tha couri asking a question, it was, in his opiuion, clearly fcan^ petent to omect to a questiou wken asked. Mr. DRAKE inquired whether it was competent fo»a Senator to object to tbe queation bemg pnt. TheChief Juatice thought not, but'said that after it wm put it muat necessarily depend on the judgment of tbe couri. , . - Mr. BINGHAM— Mr. President, I hope I maybe par doned for aaymg that my only purpoBQ IS to object to the queation, not to object to the right of the bonor^iblo Seni^ tor from Maryland to offer the queation. The point wo raise betore the Senate ir, that it ia incompetent for the accused te make hia own declarations eviduuce for himself. The Chief Justice-T-Senators :— The Chief Justice has already said upon a former occasion that for tho purpraie of proof of the intent thia gueation is admissible, and he thinks also, thtttitcomea within the rule which has boen adopted by the Senate aa a court for its proceedings. This is not an ordinary court, but it ia a court composed largely of lawyers and gentlemen engaged in busmess tranaactionfl, wIio are quite competent to weigh the que* tions submitted to them. The Chief Juatice thinks it iu accordance with the rule which the Senate has adopted for themselves, and which ho has adopted for his guidanQ& Mr. BUTLER— Do I understand the (Jhief Justice to aav that this is precisely the some queation that was ruled upon last night?. The ChiefJustice- The Chief Juatice < does not .under take to say that. Wfaat he doea aay is, that it is a question of tho samo general import, tending to show the intent of the President in this transaction. I wish, if there is any regular mode of doing so, to aacertoin another point, and that is, whether tho .fact that this offer was' made by tho witneaa on the stand was first put in by tbe defense or tbe prosecution. The Chief Justice— The Chief Justice will remind the Senate.that the queation is not. debateable. Mr. E VARTS-,1 may be permitted to state that it is paxt in by tho defense Mr. HOWE— I, wish the Chief Justice to understspid that it la not debating ta ask a question. Tho Cbief Justice— It m»y be. Mr. HOWE-It may not be. The qiieation as modified waa again read^ The Chief Juatice aubnjitted it to tbe Senato, and it wns adraitted by the followiug vote :— Ybas.— Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, <*». bett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Freling buyaen, Grimes, Hendpraoni Hendrick?, Johnson, M&>« Creery, Morton. Norton, Patteraon (Tenn.), Roi^s, She» mauv Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey-.a6k Navs.— Messrs. Ciuaaeron. Chandler, Cattell, Conkling, Conneas, £raein, Drake, Edmunda, Ferry, Harlan, How ard, Howf. Morgan, Morrill (Me;), Morrifl (Vt.j,'Nye, VgL teraon(N.H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Tipton* M^K lioms, Wilson and Yates— 24. The question haviug beenput to ^e witness, GeneM Sherman replied as follows ;— The conversations wer<^lotig and covered a great deal of ground, but I will endeavprjtO be OB preciae upon the point as poisible. The President stated to me that tbo relationa wnich bad oruwn imJie^ tween the Secretary of War (Mr. Stanton) and huneeOL. Mr. BUTLER— I must ^aiu interpose an objection. Tha aueation is for tbe witness simply to Btate what tiie Pe»e>> ent ffoid his purpose vras, and not to introduce his wbote declarations. I pray that the point maybe aubmiitod Jo- tho Senate wbetber we will have the whole of tbe long conversation between -the Preudent and the witnosa. or whether wo shall have notmng but thepurpose expressed by the president? !"«»»« Witness— I intended to be very precise In mv statemfiBt of tbe conversatioui but Hb appeared to me neo^saji^ 1^ IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. sCSte what I began toBtate->-tUs 'FceBldent told me that the rgiatlons between himself and Mr. Stantou and between Mr. Stanton and other membeA of the Cabinet Were such i mat he could not execute tbe duties of the office which he mied as Preaideut of the United States without, making nommations, aa intenim,i forjthe affice of ^Secretary, of War, sn'd thathe had the right undt^" thelaw, "^nd that his pui-pose was to haVe the office aomiiiivtered in the mte- restebf tlie army And 'Of the eouatry, and he offered ^ me tije office in that view ; be did not state to me then' itbat ins purpose was te bring it iato ftte coui'ts directly, bnt for the purpose of haiin§ theeffice «dminiBtered properly'.iu ; tho mtorpata of the country and of tho whole country. : -(Sensation in thei court). I aeked him why the lavvyers , -copld not make the case? I did not wish to oe brought, as ad officer.of the army, iuto the controversy. ^eUator CONKUN G— Please repeat^ tbat laat anawer, (xgncval. >Vitness~I asked bim why lawyera conld nbt make a ajjMe, and not bring me as an officbr intc the controversy ; nia anawer was that it was found impossible, or that acaae eould not be made^upibutr aaid. he, 'Uf we could bring the e&e Into the courts it would not stand for an hour." - Jir. STANBERY— Have you answered aetobothocca- Wttneas— Tbe conversation was very long, and covered -«e0o'od'4eal of ground. Mr. BUTLER^I object to thia examination being .re newed by the counael for the President, whatever may be the pretense under which it is renewed. I hold with due S'der that this canuot be allowed^ See hoWitia attempted.' ouiiselhad dismisaed the witneaa.- He was gone, and was was brought back at the request of oneof the judges. Mx. STANRERY-I must intermpt the learned gentleman to aay that we did not dismiss the witness. On the con trary both aidea asked to retain hira, the learned manager ' (Mr^ Butler) aaying at the time that he wanted to give him a private examination. (Laughter.) Mr. BUTLER- 1 must ^ny that. I waUt no private eK- aminatiou. I say tbe witueSa waa dismiaaeu from the stand, and tbat he w^s called back by one of tbe jndgos. ItiB uot in any couri wherein I ever practiced, aUowed, -after the question is^putl^ the judge, for the counsel on either side to resume the exammation of the witneas aftei' baying dismisaed hibi. ' ' .•¦¦:¦ nsenator JOHNSON asked for the reading of the ques- Cipns as proposed by himself, and they were read by the Qerk. - _ . . ¦ , The Chief Justice— Nothing is more usual in courts of Jastice than to recall witnebses for further examination, eepecially at the instance of an.v member of the court. It fa frequently done at the Instance of counsel. It is,' how: ever, oue of those questiona properly within 'the discretion of the gourt. If the Senate dt>sire Ishall put the questioU to the Senate whether the Witness shall be further ex amined. Mr. EVARTS— May we be besf d upon the question? The Chief Justice— Certainlv. Mr. EVARTS^The question Mr. Chief Justice ai^d Sena. ttrrs, whether a witness may be recalled, is always a ques tion within the diacrstion of the court, and it is alwavs allowed, unlesa there be Tiusplciou of bad faith, or unlcsa tiiere be apodal cirourostauces where collusion is auspected. Courts frequently may Is^ down a rule that neither party tduU'CSil a witnesa who has been Once dismissed from the stand, and of course we will obey whatever riile the Senate luSiV adopt in this case, but we are uot aware that anything has occurred showmg a beceaaity for the adop tion of such a rule. Mr. BUTLER— When the witness waa on the stand on Sii'turday, this question' waa asked of him:— "At thotiui- tcrview wbat conversiition took place between the Pre- ri^nt and you in relatiou to the remOVal of Mr. Stan tou?" That queation was objected to, and after argu ment the Senate solemnly decided that it ahould not be piit. That was exactly the aame question as this. then other -ippoceedinga were had, and after considera- Dle delay the counsel forthe President got up and asked permiasioa to recall this -wituesB this morning. The Se nate gave that permission. This moVning they recalled ¥ie witness, add put to him siich queations as they pleasedv hon'the '#itnes« was sent away, and then one of 'thp indgesdeairedtoput a queation to^ aatipty his ownmin^ Of courae ho waa tibt acting as counsel for^the Presidenti that cannbt be aupposed. ¦ ' " ' Senator JOHNSON, rising— What does the honorable 'manager mean? Mt.TBUTLER- I mean' precisely what I aay, that it cffunot be auppoeed that the Senator waa acting for' the Bresident^ m " ' ¦ Senator JOHNSON— Mr. Cfaiflf Justice, if the honorable itt&Bager means to impute that m anything I havedone itt this tnal I have bpen acting" as couUflOl,- or in tho spirit of eonnsel, ho doea not know tho man ef wfaom he apeaks. I am here to discharge a duty, and that' duty I purpose tb dMcharge. I kuow the lew aa welLaa he dOea.' Mt., BUTLElt— Agam I-i^peat, ao that my language may notbemisunderatood, that it cannot be supposed that ho was acting as counael for tho President. ' ^Having put his qnoBtion to satisfy his mind upon something which '«Jie wanted to know, howcanit be that that opens the ease bo OS to allow the Preaideht'B counael to go on to a new exa mination? Howdo we know that ne is not acting oa oounsel for tho Preaident, and tbat there is not aome un derstanding between them, which I do nut charge? How cottthe Preaident'a coun«el know' what satisfied the Se nator's miud? Ho recaUa a witnesa for the purpose pf sa- **-*ying his owu mind. liKgree thatit is common to recall witnesaes for some- tlefyii thingroverfoofced, on any, wit ness, and putting anO' question which tbey may aee. ^t, ' Weimpute no improper motive'to any Senator in doing into, but recognize bis perfect right to do so, and the entire pro* prietyofit. j, .¦ .,,. ,. _,,. , t- , Mr. EVARTS-A moment's consideratmn, I think,, will satisfy the Senate and the Chief Justice that tbe questaon ^ not preciiiely aa to tbe riSght to recalha witnesB. but.« to whether a witneaa having -been recalled to anawer'the queation of one of the judgea^ tha counael on the. other SMie ' ia obliged to leavo that portion of the evidence incomplete. Some evidence might oe brought out, which, as- ifr atopd noted, raight be prejudicial to one side or the other, aim certamly It would be competent under tho ordinary rules of examination, that the counseL ahould be permitted jto place tte matter before the court withm the proper suiee of evid^ce, ' " ReTcrdy Johnson's Services- Mr. STANBERY— The houorable Senator from Mm^ land having put his queation to the witness, a new door haa been opened which was closed upou us before. New evidence baa been gone into which was a concealed, book to us, and about which we qould neither -exftmm^r cross-'examine. * "It was closed to ub by a decision of ine court on Saturday, but it is now opened to ua by the quefr tion of the Senator; Now. is it possible, that We mnrt take an answer for better for worse to a queatmn which we did not put. Ifm that answer the matter had been condemnatorv to ttie President; if the answer hadoeea I that the President toldthe witness expressly ihat he ip. tended to violate tho law ; that he waa acting in bad -foiibi that he meant to use- force, are we to be told that because .thefactwaa bronght out bya Senator and not by oui- selves, we cannot put one queation to elicit the whole truth? « ..^ ^ ThisianotltBatimony of our seekiug. Suppose " hM been brought out by the Sohator. lalhe Seoretary of War Bacred against the pursuit of thp true and sacred nght of examination? Does tho doctrine of "eatoppel" ' come m here, that whenever a question ia answered on the prei*o- gative of a Senator We must take tbe anawer without any opportunity of teating it further? If so, then we are estopped, not by our act, not by the testimopy v»9iich we Called out ourselt, but by the act of another, and we are ehur out from thetrUth because a Senator baa choScu to put a question. We hold that the door haa been opened, that new tpst* mony has been introduced into the case, and that wd have aright to croas-examine the witneaa to explain tbe te^lr mony, to controvert it, if we can, to impeacn the very wit ness who teatifiea to jt. if we can. We are entitled to Uae every weapon which a defendant has put into his hands. Mr. BINGHAM— Althoujjh tbe Senate cannot fa|l to have ob^rved the extraordinary remarka which have juat fallen from the lipa of the honorable counsel for the I^es^ dent, it u^erfeetly apparent to- intelligent men, whether on'the fioor of the Senate or in those galleries, thatthe counsel for the ' Plfbaidont have 'attempted to obtain, through this witaeai, the mere na'tced declarations bf tbe accused to r^uttmlp^ presumption of bia guilt, lurisipg from bis haviug dene an unlawful act. -' lamtrbt mirpriae^ at'fhe feeling with which the honor able gentleman' haa dlaeusBod' thisqueatiou. If rhe^rd aright the testimony which fell from the witness, 4t5a-ft&- ' timony which utterly diskppdinte'd and confouUddd' the 'coim'eel ^r -the accused. ' Whiat'was it? *^Nothing ^^is said," said tho witness, *'in the firat conversation- ^bent^in appeal to the courts,aud finally It was aaid by the President that itle to make up a case bywitiich to ap peal to the courta.'* ^ , ,.. These declatations of the President, Standing indue } fbrm, yet not aatifefOctorV to the counael, are brought up* tO' be sure, on a question irbrhthe honorable Sepator frc^n Maiylaud ; but there Is no satisfaction to the counSeL and now they tell the Senate that they bave a right to dross- examine. Too^oss-exanilue whom? TocroirB-examethisir own witnesses. Por what purpose? In search of the trufh, they soy. Well, it is in' pursuit of tho truth under^iffictl- tiea. (Laughter.), The witneas haa bready sworn to mat ters of fact. Thatshowsthenaked faMtyof tbe-^efew-" interposed hero by tbe ProBldent— that hia only pi^iposeln violating the law was to teat tha validity of the laW in the courta. Why did he not test the Validity bf tbe law in the courts? . It will not do to aay to the Senate of the United States that he has accounted for it bv telling this witness that;, a case could not be mode up. Thelgarned gentleman who IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 135 SaeluBt taken hia seat is too faifilllat' With th« law of the C^Vitrv, too familiar with the able lidj it dicationa iu t^iai voiy case in the Supreme Court, to venture to mdorae for Cnomentxheseutterancesof biselleutmade te the Lleu- teiant-Gcncral. that it was impossible to moka up a cu-ae. rtfand here to assert what the learned gentleman knows nght well, that all fKiit vvas heedful to" makeup acdso was fir the President of th^ United States tb do what he did do ia the firat mstance, Issue on orderdiroeting Mr.>Stanton to aprrender the oifice of Secretary of War to Lorenzo a£i lomas. to surrender aU the records and property of the -Ucg to hira, and bn the Secretarv , of War's refusal to oney that crdfir, to exCrcise the aiitbority which la vented m the Preaideut alone, through bia Attorney- Genernl, who now appears as his iaittDruey in the triai In thji defense m thisi case, and to issue ouit this wnt of quo ¦f^-ranto. ., . , ¦ , JfhatiB the law which we undertake to sav is settled in tm cose ot Wallace, 5 Wheatpn, the opiniona of tho Court boiug delivered brOhlef Justice Marshall, and no member « the court diseehtlng. It Waa declared by the Chief Jua-' Ckc aa the opinion of 'the court that-.a vrnt quo vxvrranto (iCHlldnothe^maintained except at the inatance of govern ment That power, thoreforp, was veated in the Atiomoy- Gensral. X^et the President's counsel in some pther way fiian by thia declaration, obtein what ia sought tobe ntaebed.bycroBa^exammntibn of their own witness. But. Bsmtters, there is something more than that iu this ease. and I desire simply to refer to It bore in passing. The question wJMcfa ariaea here in, argument now is. in Buffiatence and in fact, whether having violated the .Cqusti-l tion and laws of the UnitedStates Inthe manner shown' here. They cannpt at laajt atrip.the people of the power! which they retain to themselves by impeachmeot, to hold eCicfa malefactors toanswer before theSenate of the Uni ted Stetea, to the excluaionof tbe mterpoeition of every tribunal of justice on G^'sfoptetool. . What has thja ques tion to do with Uie final dticilion In thia case. I say that if your Supreme Court waa eitting to-day in judgment on this question it would bave uo infiuence over the action of this Senate. The question belonga to the Senate exclu sively. The words of the Constitution arc that '^theSen-. ate shall have sole powerto try impeachments." ' The sole or only power to try impeachments mcludoB the! , ptTwer to determine the law aud the facts arising in the ease. It i» in vain that the decision ofthe Supreme Court, ocofthe Circuit Courts, or of tfae District Court, or of any other eourt outside of ¦UMB'high tribunal; is^nvoked^l^the fleow- ingqueatiou:- Did the President, on either of the ooca- eiona alluded to, express to you aconviction, resolution or determination to remove Mr. Stanton from his office? Witness- If by removal by force, he never conveyed to my mind auch an impreiHOU; hut he did most uUmia- takably say that he could have no more intercourse with hira on the reUtkmejof President aud Secretary of War, Senator HOWARD propased tha foU^iwing .question- in Writing:- You aay the Preiident apoke of force. W^^^ did lie say about force? A. I inquired, ''Buppoaing Mr., Stauton does not yibld, what then was to bc done?" "Oh. aaid he, there ie no ne cessity of considoring that question; onthe presentojthm of an order he will retire." Senator HO WARD— la that a fuH answer to the ques tion? , , • ^ ..'¦•¦ ^ WitnssB- 1 think it is. senator HENDERSON propoaed the foUowinet question m writing:— Didyou give anyopinioU or advice to the ,-Presideatou either 01 thcEw occasious iu reference to the legality, or princip.le of an ad interi'm, appointment, and if ab. vvhat advice did you giye, or what opiniona didyou exproah to him? ; Aui KENGHAM— That we muet'objec* to,' Mr. BUTLER—That queation baa been overruled tonqe to-day, , ,^ Tho Chief Juatice put the question to tho Senate and tbe Senate ref uAcd to adtnit it. J^, STANBERY stated that he had uo further question to ask tho witness. - ' , ,' Mr. BCTLERremarked that ho did uot know that the counael for the Preaidjent had anything to do with jihe .ex amination. ,.,_.;_, The Cl lief Justice asked the managers whether they de- Birod to croflB-et Amino the ivitneas? . Mr,: BINGHAM said they did not at present desire to osk him auy questiona. but tbey would, probable-eall him to morrow. "¦''„,,. .General Sherinan remarked, I, am aummonfid- befoM ydiir'cbiiimtrt^io 'to-morrow. ...¦., Mr. BVAR TS insisted that tho crois-eXamlnatiou shouM proceed before tha .witness waa aUowpd.to leave the atand. Mr. BINGHAM said, we'dd notpreposo to crosB-exaanine him at preaent. 'I Mr. EVARTS inaisted thatthe croas-examination should proceed. Mr. MNGHAM remarked thatthe counael for ths'IVesi- dont had asked on Saturday fbr leave to recall the witness, and that the raanagers made no objection. ' < It was for the Senate to determine whether the managers might call him to-morrow. Mr. EVARTSsaid, we have no desire to be reatrictl^ in lae IMPEACHAIENT OF ANDREW, JOHNSON. X these rules, but we desire that tbe rules |}e equally strict on ;.Doth sides. . , The Chief Justice repiarked that under the rules the witness Bhould be cross-cxaminpd, bid that-it was a mat ter for the Senate to so-y whet^r they would allow him to bo re-called by the mauaeers to-ihorrow. , Mr. BUTLERsaid thirwitness has not been called by .the counseljfori tho President, and therefore we do not cross-examine him; we take our bvni couibc in our owu way. R. J. MeijES Re-called. Mr. STANBERY asked the witness to read from his boakH the records of the cate of the United States vs. Lo renzo Thomas. SS. BUTLER objected that the docket entry of a court until the record' is made up, Is nothing niol-e xhan 'the niinutea from which the record ift to be extended, and is not evidence. , .' ',^ Tfie Chief Justice aaked tbe managers wnetbw tbey objected? Mr/BUTLER-I have objected. TheChief Justice directed the question to be educed to •writing. . Being reduced te writing it w«b read as follows :- ' 'Have you got the dockef^ entries as to the disposition of ¦^Siecaseof theUuitedStatesva. Lorenzo Thomas; if so,: •%-il! you produce and read tbem? -' TheChief Justice— TheChief Justice thinks that this Is ¦a part of thesame transaction; He will put tho queation itp the Senato if anv ono desirea it. N 0 vote havine been called for, the Chief Justice directed -tho' witneas to answer the quoatiou. • The witneaa handed tbe l%eord to the reading clerk, who -read as follows : — " No. 5711. United States va. Lorenzo Thomas, Warrant for'his arreet iaaued by Hon, Chief Justice^ Cartter, on tho ¦oath of E. M. Stanton, to anawer a charge of high miade- -meanor, iu that ho did unlawfully accept an appbintment to the office of Secretaryof War ad interim,. Warrant served by the Marshal ; reeognizance for hia nppearauce on Monday, the 26th inst. ; discharged by Chief Justice Cartter 'On motion of defendant's counsel. ' ' ' - The witneaa waa not croaa-examined. Senator JOHNSON moved that the couri do now ad- _enator HENDERSON called for tbe yeas and naye, but they "were not ordered. Tho question was taken by div^fon, and the motion was carried by 24 to 18, so the court at quarter of five o'clock adjourned, and the Senate immediately after adjourned. PROCEEDINGS OF TUESDAY, APRIL 14. T^e conrt was opened in dSefo^m, On motion, "thereH^inf; of the jonrrial w«s dispensed wltli. Mr. STANBERY was absent at the opening. ', M^. SUMK:&K offered and sent to the Chair the fol lowing order : — ArguBients of ConnBel. , Ordered, That iu answer to the motion ofthe mana gers .in reference to the limitinfof tlie flnal argu- TOent, im)e»s otherwise . ordered, such other manaaera: and counsel as choose may print and Ule thfejr remarks at any tlnie on the closing ari^tlment. TheChief j;Hstice— If there be no objeetiou, it will be BO ordered. . Mr. CONNKSS— I object, Mr. President. Mr. SUMNER— I woald respectfully ask nnder what rule snch objection can be made^ The Chief Jnstice replied that on Several occasions he h»d decided -thie rules ot ths Senate to B« the rules of the conrt as far as applicable. Mr. SUMNEB— Of course, it is not for me to argue the question, bnt 1 beg leave to remind the chair of toe rule under which this order was made. The Chief Justice— It will lie over. To the Counsel— The counsel for the President trill proceed wuh the desfense. Illness of Mr. Stanbery. .v.*''ii'^^4^'''^ roAand said it was the misfortune of t^residept'e ooiTnseii to be obliged co state to the court that since the sdjournment yesterday Mr. Stan- Beiy had been seized with an illness whl«h prevented ;S^n Mv''r,*'"'k '¦^s moraing. Ho (Mr. .Bvarts) had ITthr™- ""'"F."''^ morning, and had learned that }S..>,1 "P"""" of the physician h6 *Oiild uiddnbtedly be able to rasume kit duties .vrithia foMy-eight"hourii Thers might be ^ome hope .that be could not A .to to-morrow. In visw of thp euddenaesa of tbe Oftnb rence and of their arrangeraentB in regai;^ to prfaflj it would be difflcnit and almost impossible with vij propriety, with proper att entibo to the case, to M. eeed to-day, and tbey supposed that an indalgsnMM least for te-day would ileasen the chances or iesef procrastinaitlpn. The Senate would bear in, mind thu much of their proposed evidence was withiu the pci. sonal knewledge of Mt. Stanberjr, ahd not withTk that of his awociatpg. It was, of course, unpUasas) to them t9 introdnse these personal consideratioiia, bnt in their bett jndgment it was necessary to sus> mit ths' metimi to the, ' discretion of the Seuati^ whether the indulgence shonld be limited to this daj or' extended to the time necessary for the restoraiiei of Mr. SUnbery, whom he bad seen last evening, aftd supposed tbat he wpuld be able to go outbis marnlnia as usual, as had Mr. Stanbery, and bad only learad this morniBg that Mr. Stanbery wonld J)e confined tr direction of bis physician. Mr. DRAKE sent the following to the Chafr,- and tt was read:— Cannot this day be occupied by the ,uihd. eel tor ths rsapondeat in giving in doenmeotury evidenct? Mr. BVARTS— It cannot, as we understand tbe iw. ture iad condition of the proofs. Adjournment until To-day. On motion of Mr. HOWE, the Senate, sitting nn court, adjourned until' to-morrow at twelve o!Qk>cJB, Messrs. Sumner and Fohie^py only voting nay. PROCEEDINGS OF WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15. The court was opened in dne form, andthfltts. nagers and members of the House were anuoiinM and took their places. Messrs. Stevens and Williams were absent at ths opening, but appeared shortly afterward. Mr. Stai^ bery was also absent. The Manaffei^ Speeches. Aftei; the joiirnal was read. The Chief Justice' stated the gueation tobe OBtlM order of Senator Sumner, snbmitted yesterday, wtieh was i%ad, as follows :— I Ordg-ftJ, That in answer to the motion of the mans^gBn, undei^he rule liraiting the argument on a side unica otherwise ordercd,.BUch other managers and coimsclfuF tho Fretidentt ,AS choo'se may print and file ar^ments i|^ any time before the closing argameut on the part'o£llM managers. ^^ Senator EDMUNDS— I moye to amend tha order ss it will read, "may print and flle arguments at any time before the argument of the opening TOMivtfM -should be concluded, in order that ths counsel fbi,tlu defense mny see it and reply to it." seuator SUMNER- 1 have no objection to tbat. The ordpr as amended was read. Mr. BVARTS— Mr. Chief Justice, may I be allBtdsd to ask a question? The amendment offered and »»• cepted places, I siinpose. the proper restrictious upsa tbe arguments to be filed on tue part ef the manacaMf Bersral Senators- We cannot hear. . ^^ Mr. BVARTS, Jn a louder tone— The *restrie«W proposed to be placed on thia liberty by the ameiaJ ment puts the matter on a proper basis, I suppMX as regards the printed briefs, that may be put inOB the part of the managers; that is, that they shall «s filed before we make onr reply. On our part, it wSbH be proper that we should have the opportunity to fill the brief at any time before the closing managst makes hia reply, so we may have ^n bpportuhitj ^ replying in our brief to that of the nmnagers. Mr. BINGHAM— Mr. President:- 1 &eire to B»T that It wonia seem, it the otd»r be inade as it is sn* gested, that additional argunienu made by tbe eonn sel ih behalf bf the PreBident need not be filed till tM clo^e of the arghinents made orally to the Senate. HB managers on behalf of the people would haves)%- IMPEAOHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 13t portunity to see the arguments. I would ask the Se nate to coni'ider whether it is r:i;bt to eiye the counsel for tbe Preiident an opportumty to rey iew and reply to argramects of tbe coansel for tbe people before any argument whatever may be filed here on behalf of tbe President. Mr. EVARTS— TTndoubtedly there are inconveni ences in this enlargement of tbe rnle, bowerer ap plied; but there seeme to be a propriety in requiring^ the managera to flle their argubient before the reply of counsel for tbe President, The same role would be applied to us tbat, by the present amendment, would be applied to the mamigers of' tbtK impeach ment, for they are not required to file tbeirs, except at the very moment that they close tbeir oral, argument, and then we are obliged to commence our oral argu ment. Cbarse of Delay. Mr. NELSON, after making some remarka in an in audible tone, until admonished by Senators to' speak louder, proceeded as follows: — In conseqnence of the imputation made by the managers that we desired unnecesearily to consume thetime of the Senate, those of us wboi under this arrangement, had not intended to argue the case, did not yield, either by tftirselvcs or by others, to make any application to tbe Senate for an enlargement of the rule ; but since that application has been made on the part of tbe managers, I desire ,to say to tba Seuate that, if we are permitted to argue, at all, I think it would be more fair to the two oounsel who did not ex pect to argue the cmc, to permit ns to make au eitcm- poraueons argnmeut before the Senate. We have not made any preparation in view of written argdments • whatever. "We suppose that the managers pn tbe part of the Honse, who have bad thia subject before them for a mach longer period than we have, are more fa miliar with it, aud are better prepared to iflake writ ten arguments; eo that, if the rule be extended, we respectfully ask the Senato to allow us to address tbe Senate in sucb mode, either oral or written, as we may desire, I I do not expect tobe able to interest the Senate as much as the learned gentleraan to whom the manage ment ofthe case has hitherto' been confided on tae §art of the President, yet, as a resident of the Presi- eht's own State, and I bave practiced my profession in the town of his own domicile for tbe last thirty years, and as he baa thought proper to ask fn^ ser vices in his behalf, and as I fally concur with him in the leading measures of his administration, I desire I may be allowed to be heard in tbe manner in which I bave snggested. An Amendment to tbe Amendment Proposed Senator CONNESS made a- motion, in writing, to fetrike out all after the word "ordered/^ and insert the 'following as a aubstitnte; — That the twenty-first rnle shall be W amended to allow as many ofthe managers and of Tbe connsel for the President to. speak on the final argument as shall chose so to do, providedtbat not more than four days on each sid& shall be allowed, but the managers shall make the opening and closing argument, Senator DRAKE asked the yeas and nays, and the •ubatitute was loat by the following vote :-^, YEAa.—Messrs. Cameron, Cqnne&s, Cragin, Dixon, Doo little, Fowler, Hiftlan, Henderson, Hendricks, McCreery, PatterBou'(Tenn.), Kamsey, Sherman, Stewart, Truuibull, Van Winkle, Willey, Wilson, and Yates— 19. Nays.— Messrs. Antbonv, Buckalew, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Davia, Drake, Edmunde, I'erry, .TVeling- buysen, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, MorriU (Me.J, MorrilUVt.), Morton, Patteraoii CN, Hj, Pomerpy, Roas, Saulebur-y, Sumner, Tbay6r. Tipton, Vickers, and Wil liama— 27. . t , Tbe questipn. wfts tbeiL stated to be on tbe order of Senator Doolittle— Mr. Chief Justice, I prefer oral argument to printed ones; and I snbmit the follow ing, notwithstanding there are but four cries of "or- dcr--order" of the ctmnsel for the President, ami six ^f the managers of the House. (Order— order.) I -bave sent to the chair an order which I will ask to have read. It wos read, as follows:— Strike out all after the word order, and insert ,"on the final argum(int two maiiag'ere of the House,iShall ^ben, two of tbe counsel for the resoondent reply.; -then two of the managers speak, and they to be fol lowed by tbe two other counael forthe respandent; aud they in turn to be followed b;^ the two other manapers ofthe Honse, who shall .conclude tbe airgu- ment." , .' ¦ ^^ Mr. DRAKB— Mr. president, 1 move tbe indefinitp postponement of the wbole protJosition, together with the subject. Mr. SUMNEE called for the yeas and nays, and the motion was carried by the following vote :— Yeas.— Mesflre. Anthony, Btickalei^, Chaftdler, Cole, CoukhDg, ConnepH, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Drivke, Eii munds. Ferry, FeSBendcn, Grimes. Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Patteraon (N. H.), Pomeroy, Ross, Saulabury, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, WiUiams and Yates— 24. Nays.— Measrs. Cameron, Cattell, Cragin; Doolittle, Fowler, Frelinghuvsen, McCreery, Patterson (Tenn.), Eamaey, Bumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey aud Wilson. -H. So the jinbject was indeflnitely postponed. Mr. FBRKY offered the following:— €>rdere4i, That the twelfth rnle be so amended as that the hour of the day at which tho Senatt^ shall sit upon the trial now pending, shall be, unleas otherwise ordered! cleTcn o'clock A. M„ and that there shall be a recess of thirty minntes each day, commencing at two o'clock P. M. The order was rejected by the following vote :— Ybab.— Messrs. 4Jameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conk ling, Connefs, Corbett, Cragin, DrakeJ Ferry, Frelinghuy sen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill (MeJ. Mom rill (Vt.), RamseT, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Williams, and Wilnon— 24. " Nays.— Mffssrs. Anthony^ Bayard, Buckalew, Davia, IMion, Doolittle, Edmunds, Feflsehden^ Fowler, Grimes, Henderson* Hendricks, JohUBon, McCreery, Mcrtocu Pat terson (N. H.). Patterson (Tenn. ),Pomel^ov, Hoss, Saiilfl- bniT, Tipton, TrumbuU^ , Van Winkle,. Vickers. Willey andYates^36. ; ¦ .- Reaumption of Business. Tho Chief Justice directed the counsel to proceed witb the CMC. , 1 ¦ ¦ . ¦ t , Mr. BVATSTS— Mr. President and Senators, althougb I am not a|bie tp arinoUnc6 as 1 should be very glad to do* that our a'BBoeiate, Mr. Stanbery, according to the hope we entertained, has not been able to come out to-day. Yet I am happy to say that he is quite convaleacent. and cannot be long kept from giving tho case his attention. Under theie circaraBtaDces and from a desire to do what ever we may propeflr do in adrauciog the trial of this cause, we propose to proceed to jput in documentar^y evi dence, hoping that we will not be called upon to put m any oral testimony until to-morrow. , Nomination of Xlwing. Mr. CURTIS aaid he would have to call upon the ExeCtt- tive Clerk of the Senate to. produce the n^omination of Thomas Ewing, Sr^of Ohio, to the office of Secretary of War, on the 21»*«)f February,. 1*68.' , The Chief Justice was underBtood to expressa doubt as to whether, under the rules of the Senate,- nommatiouB were not under the injunction of secrecy. Senator EDMUNDS asked the unanimous consent of tbe Seuate to show that the fact of a nomination beiug made was considered not subject to the injunction of secrecy. Mr. CURTIS said he was so instructed, and therefore be had supposed that no moti(m toremove tbe mjunctionof secrcey.was necessary. Senator SHERMAN said that, if a -motion was con- sidered ueeeBsary, ho ¦ would move that the Executive Clerk of the Senate be awomas a witnesH in the case. The motion was agreed to. and the Executive Clerk of tho Senate, Mr. Dewitt Clark, was sworn, and examined by Mr. Curtis, as follows :— Mr. Clark's Testimony* Q. Statewhatdocumentyouhavebeforeyou? A. I hava the original nomination, by the President, of Thomaa Ewin^, Sr., aa Secretary of the Departiient of War. Q. Please to read it? A. WituesB reads as follows :— "Tb -theSenate of the United ptates:— I nominate ThomaB Ewing, Sr., of OhiOv to be Secretary for 'the Department Of War. ' ANDEEW J(5HNS0N.. "Washington, D.,C„ Feb. 21', 1868." Q.' On what dav wa« this actually received by you. A. On the 22d of February. ^ , . , , An Executive Messaffe. Mr, CUETIS said— I now desire to put in evidence a'tcfeB" sageffoihthe President of the United States to the ¦ Senate of thte- United Sfatet", which bears date February M, 1?68. I havo .a printed copy, whichis an authorized copy, audi suppose it will uot oo objected to.. , , ' Mr, BUTDKR— The vehicle of proof ia not Objected to,but the proof is objected to for a very plain reason. This mes- 'sage was sent after the PreBident waa impeached by the House, and of course his declarations pnt in, or attenroted to be put in after hia impeachment, whether directed to the Senato or any body elae, can't be given in evidenM^, The exact order of time may not be in the mind of Sena- -tors, and I will theref ore state it. On the 21at of February, -a resolution wis offered in the House looking to the im peachment of the President, and it was referred to a com- ¦mlt^Ce-on the 22d of February, the committee reported, aud the impeachment was actually voted, then intervened Sunday, the 23d. Aaymessuagesent onme24th of Feb ruary must have been known to the President to be after his impeachment. ' Mr. CUKTia— Itwillbe,.l'ecollected that tlie bonorablfe manager put lu evidence a- resolution of the Senate to which this message is a response, so that the question Is 138 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. TFiiether the honorable managers can.put in evidence a re solve of the Senate tranBmitt<}d to tne Preiident of the TJnited States with reference to the ;rcmoval of Mr. Stan ton, and refuse to receive ar'epty ii^hleh the President made to that renolvc. ' -, ,,¦*',. ¦ Mr, BUTLER— 1, have only to.Bay that this lean argu ment of preiudice and not of law.. Will my learned friends opposiite dare to aay that they have read of a case where, after theindictmentof* criminal, the respondent 8 'as allowed to put in evidence his statemetit of hiK-e,rer. received *b proper evidence, and the reaaon why wc did not consider irob- jeetionaline was bccaune wC' Bupipnscd.afl a matter of c^iirac of Tight,»that this menBage, .which is an answer to that rc- Bplut^ou on the iutroduction of the topic before oflferpd in ievidchce, would be adnii.'*»iblr iu testimony, Wc submit, , therefore, that in.every principle of law and of dlwussion in reference to the completenesa of the record on the point, fhis mesaage ofthe Preaident should be allowed to bo read And given in evidcnco. Mr. BUTLER— I simplv deaire to call the attention of the jSenate to the fact, whether thatia a matter of daring or bf profeasional knowledge. Neither counael have statpd any poaaible reaeon which is proper should bo received in evidence. We put in tho rosolve.of tbo Senatf' to show tiiat. notwithstanding that fcsolTc wan sorTed on the PrcBident on the night of . the Slut ef Ecbruary, he itill went on and treated this Lorenzo Thomas ai Secretary of "War od interim; that Lorenzo Thomas wsa thus recog- I^ed hy him after that as the Secretary cKi inCenm, and that after that Lorenzo Thoma* was carryiug out his d«- sign to take posiwa?ion of the office by force. We affered it in order to enow that tho Preaident of tho United Stiitea was in favor of their client, but I will aay that the f^ntlemen have not shown any sound reason ou which this caa bo tHm' Cjbief Justice directed the couuflel for tbe President ^to put in writing what they proposed to prove. While they were engaged in,doing so, Mr. BUTLER stated tnat, for fear there might be some nriatake, he had aent the Clerk ofthe House for tbe record Wthe proceedings on impeachment. Mr. McPherson, Clerk of the House, having come in soon afterwards, and banded the House Joumal to Mr. Butler, the latter said— I find upon exanitn«tion that the atate of the record is this :— On the 2Ut of February the roiolution of impeachment was, prepared and referred to a eom - mittee ; un thb 22d the jcomraittee rioported, and that report was debated through the 33d and into Monday, tho 24th, aod the actual vote was taken 6a Me ftdraijltcd upon any form of law, upon his motion, 4o justify his own crirainal conduct. I do not he&itat^ to say that every authority which tho gentleman can bring into court relating to rules of evidence in proceedings of this sort, ifl directlr a^gninst the pi-opoaitibn, and for the airapte reason that this is a written declaration, made by the ae- cused vohnitaril;^ ^fter the fact, in his own behalf. I read for tho information of the Senate the testimony touching this fact of the service of the notice of. the action had by the Sen«tc, and of the conduct of the Preaidentk wheroof bestanii accuped. Mr. William H. McDoflalqt Chii.-f Clerk of the Senate, testifies^ on page 1^:— *'An attested copy of the foregoing resolutions was de livered by me into the hands of the President, at his offi*B in the E:cceutire Mansion, about ten o'clock P. M., on thfe Sift of Fobniary. 1869;" And on the 24th of February, three days afterwards, Ihi^ President volunteers a written declaration, which. hiB counnol now projiose to make evidence in his behalf bei!aEO fhia tribunal of juatice. Of course, it is evidence /forfco TUrpoM whatever, except for the purpot»o of exculpating uun of tho criminal accuaations preferred against him. Senatora will bear with me while I make one further re mark. The propoaition is to introduce this whole mesaaps, net simply what the President aays for himself,, not ainiplf the argument which he chooBea to present in the form ofa written declaration in vindication of his crirainal con duct, but the declaration of-third persons. The Senate is oBked to accept this, too, as evidence on the trial of tbo accused; the declarations'ofthii'dpersouB, whom he calls his' constitutional advisors. Ho states their opinions with- out giving their language. He gives tiieir conclusions, anS^ those conclupions are to be thrown before the Senate as • part ofthe evidence. I beg leave to say here, in tho presence of the Senate* that there is no colorable excuse for the President or hia counsel coming before tho Senate to say that; he haa any right to att^npt te shelter himself from a violation of tho lawa of bis country under the opinion of any member cff his iCabinet. Tho Constitution nevervested his GabiuetcoaiF flellors with any such authority, as it never vested the Prd- ,Buient with authority to suspend the laws, or to violate the laws, or to make appointments in direct contraven tion to the lawB, and in defiadeeof the fiat of the Senate acting in oxproaa obedience to tfie law. Thero is no tolerable' excusd^for theB6 proceedinga ; I sajr it with all respectfor the learned counael, and I challenge now tho production of authoi'ihr in any respeotable court that ovor allowed any maUi high prlow, officially or unofli- einllr, to introduce his own doelarationa, written or imp written, made aftor the fact in his defense. That ia tha point I take here, I b«K pofden ef tho Seuate for having IMPEAOHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 139 detained thom so long in the statemenj of a propoaition so simple, and tho law of which is so clearly settled, running . through centuries. I submit tho question to the Senate. Ittr. Erarts States His YEews. Mr. EVAETS^Mr. Chief Justice and Senatora;- Tho . only apology which the learned manager has made for the course of ma remarks is an apology for the consumption of your time, and yet he has not he^itated to aay, and again to repeat that there is no color of justification for the attempt of the Proaidcnt of the Uuited Stntes to de fend himself, or for the effort that bis counsel make to de fend him. We de not receive our law from tho learned manager. Mr. BINGHAM, rising— Will the ^entloniau allow me? . Mr. Evarts wasjiroceoding with bia remnrks. Mr. BliNGHAM— The gentleman misreprcsentB me. Mr. EVAETS— I do not niifsreproscut the honorable manager. ^ - , Mr. BINGHAM— I did not say that thore was no color of excuse for the President's attempt to defend himself, dr for the couneeVB attempt to defend him, but that there was no color of excuse for offering this teatimony. Mr. EVAETS,— It all comes to tho same thing. .Every thing that is admitted on our view or liue of the Bubject in controversy; except it conform to the prelimindry view which tho learned managers choose to throw down, is re garded as wholly outsido of the color of Uw cud of right on the nart of tho Preaident and hi» counael, and is eo re peatedly charged, Now, if the crime was completed on the Slat, which is not only the whole basee of this argu ment ot the teamed manager, but of every other argument on the evidence which I had tho honor of hearing from him, I should" like to know what application and relci- vancy the resolution had which waa passed bv the Senate on the 21st of February, after the act of the President hnd beteu completed, andaf ter'tho act had been communicated to, the Senate? - There can be no single principle of the law of evidence on which that view can'be proved on behjilf of the man agers, and Ga which the reply of the President can be gx- ciuded. What would bo thought in a criminal proPGontion of the prosecutor giving in evidence what a inagiitrate or a sheriff had said to the accuaed concerning the deed, and theu shut the mouth of tho.accuacd as to "-hat he had said tliQn and there in reply. The only possible argument by which what was aaid to him eould be given in evidencoj is that, unreijlicd'to. It might be construed intu an admission or Euhmission. , If the sheriff were to sfty to the priioner, ''You stole that watch," , and if that could bo given in evidence, and the prieouor's reply, "It waa my watch, and I took it becauee 4t waa mme," could not be given m evidence, that would be precisely the same propotition which is beini; applied here by the learned managers to this action had between tlmPrcf'ident and the SeUate. , Mi-. BUTLER— If tho thief did not make a reply nntil four days afterwards, and then sont in a written statement *'H8to who owned the watdh," was putting also in Trhat hie neighbor said would bc a more appropriate illustration. I takethe illuatration aa a good and excellent one. The eherirt" aaya . to the prisoner, "Where did you get that watch?" Four davs afterwards the prisoner eends to the sheriff', after he had been in jail, after an indictment had been found againat him, a written answer, and claims in his defense that that answer may be read; not only that, . but he goes on to put in that which evervbodv else said, or , what four or five other men said, aud claims tliat thatmay . be given in evidence. If it is deairoue to know what the Cabinet ssid, let the members of the Cabinet^ be brought here, and let us cross- exauiinc them, aud find out whatthey meant when they gave this ard vice, and how they came to give it, and under what presBure. But at present we do not want thePreei dont to- put in the advice (^ the (.Cabinet. Mr. EVARTS— Mr. Chief Justice »nd Senators ;^-Everv oaso-is to be roitardBd according to its circumstances, and you will judge whether a communication from the Senato to the President on the S3d^f FebrUauy could well have been answerecLsooner than the 24th of Februarv. Mr. BUTLEE— It was communicated on the 21st of Fe- binaiy . U . ' ¦ Mr. EVARTS— I, understood vou to say that you could not state whether it waa tho 31st or tho 22d. Mr. BUTLEIU-It was at teu o'clock on the night of thcSlPt. , , ' Mr. EVARTS— Very well; it was commuuicated atten o'clock onthe sight of the 31st of February. The Senate was not in acsaipn on the 32d more than an hour, it being a hobday. Then Sunday intervening I ark whether an answer to that communication, sent on Monday, the 24th, is not an answer, accCrdiug to the ordinary course oi proinpt and candid dealing between the Prepident and the Senate, concermng the njatter iu difficulty? As far as the eimile about the Preifldent being in prison goes, I will remove that by Saymg that be was ndt impeached until fiveo'clockP. II. Of Monday, the 24th, but we need not EurBue theae trivial illustrations. The matter ia in the ands of the court, and must be disposed, of by the court. Mr. Bingham Resumes. Mr. BINGHAMrt^I deaire to say once for all that I have said no word,' and intend to say no word during the pngi-esBof the trial that would justify the assertion of the counsel fati the Prcsidoiit in aaying that we deny them the right to make defenaes of the President, What 1 in- Ei't iijion here, what I aek the Senato to act unon Ib. that be shall make a defense precisely oa an unofficial citizen of tho United Btatea makes defense— according to the law of the land, and not otherwise. That he shiili not, atti^r tho coinmieflion of a ci'ime, manufacture ovidence in his own behalf, either orally or. in writing, by hia own decla- tions, and. incorporate into them the declarations of third ptrsons. It has never been allowed in any re spectable court in thia eountry. Wheu men stand ou;, trial for their lives they never are per mitted, after the fact, to manufacture testimony by their ovvn decljirationa, either written or unwritten, andontheirown motion introduced them into a court of justice, I have another word to say in the light of what has dropped from the lips of the counsel, that he haa evaded most skillfully the point which 1 took oeeaaioii to make in the hearing of the Senate, that here is an attempt to introduce not onfy written declarationfl of the accused m hia owu behfilf after the fact, but declarations of third persons not under oath. I venture to cay that a proposition to the extent of this never was made before in any tribunal of justice in tho United Stacos where aay man was accused of crime— a i propoiition n. t merely to give hia own declaration, but to report the di- clBrations of third persons in his own behalf and throw thera before a court as evidence. The gentleman stceuia to think thnt the Preaident had a rightto send a message to the Senateof the United States, which ahould onorate aa evid43nce. I concede that the Preaident of tho United States has a right under the ComititUtion to communicate trom time to timo to the two Houses nf Congress such mnt- ter as he thinks pertain to the public interest, and if he thinks this raatter pertained to t' e public intereat, ho might flcnd a measnge, but I deny that there ia any tolera ble excuse. I repeat my worda here foriutimating that tho President of the United States, beiug charged with the commisaion of a crime onthe 21st of February, 18'>8— being proved' guilty, I undertake to ,sav proved guilty, by hia written confession, to the Batistaction of every iutclliKcut , aiid unprejudiced mind in or out of the Sunate in thia country— can proceed to manufacture eTidence in his own behalf^iu the form of raessage, three daya after tho fact. That is the point tliat 1 make here. We aro a^ked, what importance then do we attach to the action of the Senate? I answer,that we attach preciBcly thia importance to it. that the law of the land enjoins upon the PreaidKutof the Unittd States the duty to notify the Senate of the enspension of an officer, and the reason therefor, and the evidence on which he made the suspension, and tlie law of the land enjoins upon the Senate the duty to act upon the re port of the Preaident, so made, and to qpme to a decipioa upon that report, ind uppn the evidence accompanying it, piirauance of the reguireincnt of tho second section, of 2 Tenure of Olhee act. The Senate ofthe United Statea, theby-au aliuoflt uuanirooua decision, como to the conehisioa that the reasons furnished by the President and the evi- . deuce adduccdbyhiinforthe suspenslnu of the Secretary or War were unsatia'factnry. Tn aceordanco with tho law, the Senate non-concurred in the euppension. Tho law ex"- Treasly provides that if the Senate concur, they fliall notify the Presideni. The law, by every intfud- ment, provides that if the Senate noU- concur than that which regards the intent with which an act is done. Inthe present case itappeara that the Scpate on the 21-t of "Febrdary pasped a resolutionwhichl will take the liberty of reading'.— "ir/tereos, The Senate have received and considered tbe coraraunication of the President, stating that he had removed Edwin M. Stantop, Secretary 'of War, 'and bad designated the Adjutant-General of tho Arffivtoactas Secretaryof war, od iTiterint; therefore, iiesolved, By tho Senate of the United States, under tho Constitution and laws of the United, StiLtpt, the Preaideut has no pokier to remove the Secretory ot War and to de- "signate any other officer to perform the duties of that office ad iniertm.*^ Thatrcsolution wasadopted on 21st of Feb ruary, and was served ori the evening of tl^e aame day. The mccsace now proposed to be offered in evidence was aont to the Senate- on tne S4tb ox jfebru^y. It does not apjieajr 140 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. Sthe Chief Justice that the resolution' of the Senate lied for an answer, and, therefore, Ihe Chief Justice must regard the mesBage of the 24th of February as a vin- dic.Ttion of the President'a act. addressed to the Senate. It dues not appear tb the Chief Justice that that coraes within any of the *ul68 of evieenco which would justify its being received iu evidence oh thia trial. The Ghief Justice, however, will take me viewa of the Senate in regaid to it. No vote being called for, the Chief Juatice ruled the evi dence inadmissible. Tennre of Office, Mr. CURTIS then offered to put in evidence a tabular Btatement compiled at the offlee of the Attornev- General, contiiiningalist of Executive officers of the United States, with their atatutorv tenures or act of Congress creating the oihce, the name or title of the office, showing whether the teuure was for a definite tirae, at the pleasure of the President, or for a terra indefinite. He said that of bourse, it was not strictly evidence, but it had been compiled as a matterof convemence, andhe desired to have it printed, so that it might be used in argument by counsel on both sides. " After some objection and interlocutory remarks by Mr. BUTLEE, the paper wa.", on motion of Mr. TRUMBULL, ordered to be printed, as a part of the proceedings. Mr. CURTIS theU offered in evidence; papers lUtho caae of the reraoval of Mr. Pickering, by Preaident Adams, re marking that it was Bubstantiallv the game aa had been put iu evidence by Mr. Butler, except that it was more lormaL A Correction. The witness. Mr. Dewitt C. Clark, here desired to make a correction of his testimony to' the offeet that the mes suage of the President was not dcliveTnd to him on the 22d of February, but on tho'Sith of February; that it was brought Up bv Mr. Moore, the Pre-'ident's Private Secre tary, on the Kd of February, but thatthe Senate not being in session, Mr. Moore returned it to the Executive Mausidu, and brought it back ou the 24th, Mr. CURTIS- Q. Do I understand your statement now to be that Colonel Moore brought it anddeli vered it to vou on the 22d of February? A. He brought it up on the 2lat; he did not aeliver it- tome as the SenateWas not in sesaion. Q, Hetookit away and brought backon the 24th? A. Tea. ' i Mr. BUTLER-Q. How did vou know that he' brought it here on the 22d f A. Only by information frora Colonel Moore. Q. Then yon have been telling ua what Colonel Moore told you? A. That is all. Then we don't want any more of what Colonel Moore told you. ^ >¦ Secretary Moore Recalled. William G. Moore, the' President's Private Secretary, wflfi recalled and examined as follows :— 'Q. By Mr. CURTIS.- What is the docuraent that you hold in your hand? A. The nomination , of Tto9maa Ewing, Sr,, of Ohio, as Secretary for the Department of War. , ' Q. Did you receive tlmt from the President of the United States? A. I did. ^ Q. On what date? A.-On the 22d of February, 1868. Q. About what hour? A. I think it was about twelve o'clock. I Q, And before what hour? A. Befbre one o'clock, Q. Then it was beJtween twelve and one o'clock? A. It was. Q, What did you do with it? A. By direetion of the President I brought it to the Capitol to present it to the Seuate. Q. About what time did you arrive heroi? A. I cannot state definitely, but I presume it was about a quarter-past one. Q. Was the Senate then in soBaiou, or had it adjourned? A. It had, after a very brief aeeeion, adjourned. Q. What did you do with the document in eonflequence? A. I returned with it to the Executive Mannion. ' Q. Were you apprised before yoa reached the Capitol, that the Senate had adjourned? A. I waa not. Q. What did you dp with the document in conaequence? A. I returned with, it to tlie Executive Manaion, after having visited the HouBeof Efipreeen tatives. ¦ ,Q. Was anything inoi'e done with the document by you, and if bo, whe'n and what did ybu do? A. I waa' directed by thePreaident on Monday, the 24th of February, 1868, to deliver it to the Senate. i Q, Whatdidyoudoin eonflequence? A. I obeyed the orders. ' 'v ¦¦ Cro"a-examined by Mr. BUTLER. Q. Was that as it is now, or was it in a sealed envelope? A. It was in a sealed eh vclppe. Q. Didyou put it in yourBCli? A. I did not. Q. Did you see it put in? A. I did not., Q. How do you know wbat waa in the envelope? A. It was the only message that Was to go th^t day ; I gave it to the clerk, who sealed and handed ft td ine. Q. Didyou unseal' it or^x'amineit till yod delivered.it " on the 24th? A. Not to my recolleptioii ¦ Q. Didyon show it to anybody horfe on the 22d? A. No, air ; it was scaled. ¦ <• ¦ Q. Have you spoken thia moming with Mr. Clarke on the subject? A. He asked meOn whnt'dfttol had de- livm-ed the message, and I told bim it was the 24tb. ¦Mr: BUTLER— That Id 1111; * .. . ^ - -i - President Tyler's Appointments. ,Mr. CURTIS then put in evidence, withont lOtajeotlon, certified copies of the appointment by President Tyler, ou the 2&rh- of Februarv, 1844. of John Nelaon, Attornov- General, to discharge the duties of Secretary of State ad .interim,, x\ot\\ a aucceseor to Mr. Ushur should h? ap pointed, and ofthe subaeqaent confirmation by J;he Senile, on March 6, 1844, of John C. Calhoun to that ollice. Als^ V the appointment by President Fillraore, on Ji-ily 23, 1850, of Winfield Scott as Secretary of War,, ad interim, ih placo of George W. Crawford, and of the confirmation, by tlio Senate, on August 25, 1850, of Charles M. Conrad aa Qe^e. tary of War. j . Buchanan's Cabinet. Mr. CURTIS also offered in evidence the appointment by Mr. Buchanan, in January, 1861, of Moaes Kelley as acting Secretary of the Interior. Mr. BUTLER inquired whether counsel had any record of what'had'becortieof the Secretai-y of t^e Intftnoratthat time, whether he haji resigned or had fun away, or what? ^Laughter.) ' . Mr. CURTIS said he was'hot informed, and couldnot speak cither from the record or from recOEection, ' Miscellaneous KemoTala and Appointmenti. Mr. CURTIS alao offered iu evidonco the • appointment bv President Lincoln of Caleb B. Smith as Secretary ofthe Interior. , ¦ - Mr. CUETIS also offered in evidence a document relat ing to the reraoval frora oflltce of the Collector and Ap. prai-'er of Merchandise in Philadelphia. Mr. BUTLER objected to putting in evidence the letter of rcranval signed by McClintock Young, Actmg Secretary ofthe Treaaurv. Mr. CURTIS inquired whether the manager wanted evt dence that McClintock Young was Actmg Secretary! of tlie Treasury? Mr. BUTLEE replied that he did not. Mr. CURTIS reraarked thatthe documenta were certi- fied by tho Secretary of the Treaaury as coraing from the records of that department. They were offered in evidence to show the fact of the removal by Mr. Young, who stated that IT was bv direction ofthe President. ; ¦ ' Mr. BUTLER-r-The difficulty is not reraoved.n It is an attempt ¦ by Mr. -McClintock -Young, adraitted to have boon Acting Secretary of the Treasury, td remove OffiCfira by reciting that he is directed hy the Preadent so to do,' Jif thia is evidence we have got to go into the o-.ieation of tho right of Mr, Young, lo do this act, Jind whether an fl:p- praiser is one of the inferior officers whom the Secretary of the Treasury may remove, or whom the President mtff remove without the advice and consent of the Senate. Wi is not an act of the Preaideut in removing the head ofa department, .'and it is remarkable as the only capq to be found to warrant any auch removal. If itis evidence nt all, it only provea that rule by the exception. , Mr. CURTIS— I understand the raanager to adrait that Mr. Young was acting Secretary of the Treaaury. Mr. BUTLER-Yef, . sir. , Mr. CURTIS— I take this act of hia, therefore, aa Having been done by the Secretary of the Treasury. Hesavs ihat he proceeded by order of the President. I take it to be well settled, judicially especially, that whenever the head of a department says he acta by order of the Presi dent, he ia presumed te tell the truth. It requires no evi- dence to show that he acta by order of \the President. No such evidence waS ever given. No record is ever raade ot the direction which the President^ gives to one of the heads of departnreiits to proceed in a transaction of tliia kind. EBut when the head of a department says that ha acts by order of the Prcaidpnt, all 'courts -abd all bodiea presume that he tella the truth. ' Tho ChiefJustice ruled that the act of the Seeretary'of the Treaaury was the act of the preaident, but saidlifl would put the question to the Sonate if any Senator do* sired it. i ' ; ¦ .¦ No'votebeing called for, the testimony waa admitted. "Mr. CUETIS— I now offer in evidence-a document from tho Navy Uopartment. . . . While tlie Qociiment was beiug examined by Mr, Butler Senator CONKLING imoved that the court take a rocesB for fifteen minntc. Senator SUMNEE moved, as an amendment, that bnsi ness shall be reeumed forthwith after the expiration of the fifteen minutes. < ^ The qtiestion waa put on Soriatdr Sumner's amendment, audit was rejocted. The court then,- at a quater. past two, took a recoBs for fifteen minutea. '¦' ' Mr. Butier Resumes. After tho recess^ Mr. BUTLEE proceeded to state the grounds of his objectiofaa. He said tho certificate.waa not that the paper wa- not a copy bf a record frora tho' , Nayy Department, but simply that the annexed is a mere ataie- ment frora the records of thia department, under the head of memoranda. It was a statement mjide up by the chief clerk of the Navy Department of mattera that he had been asked to,, or vplunteered to furnish, leaving out many thinga that Would be neceaaary iu order to show the bear ing of t^e paper on tho case. Ho read one of the^'caaefl «iumorated, the appointment of Mr. Morton as Navy Agent at Pensacolni and said the paper did not phow what the consequeut action wae, nor whether the Senate waa tlicii m session,, nor whether tho Presidont aent another ap pointment to, the Senato at the same moraent. It was merely a, statenjent ^"erifiod as being made from the record by somebody not under bath, and on it there were occa IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 141 sional memoranda In pencil, apparently made by other perdOns. - , . > ¦ Mr. CUETIS-Apply India fibber td that. Mr. BUTLER— Yes, sir; but it is not ao much what is stated as what ia left out. Everything that is of value is left out. There are memorandas raade up from the recorda, that A. B, was removed; but the ciroamstftnceH under which he waa removed ; who was ndminated in hie place, and when that person was nominated[ does not appear. It only appears that somebody was appointed at Penaacola, Mr. JOHNSON-Are the dates given ? Mr. BUTLER— The dates are given in thiS' way. On tbe 19th of Deceraber auch a personis reraoved. Then, on the Sth of January, Johnaan was informed that ' he waa appointed. He vavat have beeu nominated to the Senate before that. Son^constat. He was nominated, Theu Johnaon was lost oh the voyage, and on the 29th another man was appointed. But the whole of the value is gone, because they have not giveu us the record. Who has any commission to raake memoranda from the record as evi dence before the Senate? And then the certificate says :— The word "copy" stricken out and writteu is a'true state ment trom the record—a stateraent auch aa Mr, Edgar Welles or somebody else was choaen to raake. I never heard that anybody had a right to come in and Certify a memoranda from a record and put it in evi dence. That ii one paper. J'hen, again, in the next paper, although it alleges they are tnie copiea'of record frora the office, they are letters abbut the fcppdintraent and reraoval of officers— navy agen.ts again. . But, being so removed and appointed, ouly abortion of the correspondence is given wnen the nominations were sent iu, I do not mean to say that my friends on the other side chose to leave thera out, biit whoever prepared this for thora haa chosen to leave out the material facta, whether the Senate was iu session 01^ whether othera were acWt. I want to call the attentioii _of the Senate still further. Ail these apbointmenta contained in these papers, ail tliey have offered are by the. act of the ISth-of May, 1820, ap pointed under the lavfa of the United States; for four years, all Uata of attbrdeya' and collectors of custoras, and providing that they ahall be reUiovablo from office at plea- euro, so enacfeid by the laws that created them, and the counsel are going to show that ~ under' that law, in some particular instances, were removed -at pleaaure, but not the manner of their removali and thonthey attempted to flhow that bv memor.inda, made up by young Welles, cer tified bv GideouAVelles. Ia that evidence? Mr, CLUinS— I underatancd ^e'sUbstancd of tho object fion made to these documents to be two. The first objec- ion ia that thoae are only memoranda frora the records, and it is said that it ia not proper to adduce iu evidence such atatements of results made from the records; that in stead of giving a paper containing the narae of the officer, the ollice that he holds, the date wheu ne waa removed, . and the person hy whose orders ho waa reraoved, there of this character, relating to removals frora office, which haa been * put in by the honorable managers is a docament from the Departraent of State, which ' contains ei«:Uy those "' memoranda of . facts :— "Schedule B— List * df appointments of bends of depart ments raade by the Presideut.jt. any time during the aes sion of the Senate— Tiraothy Pickering, Poatmaater-Gen eral, June 1, 1794," etc. This is a list extracted out of the recordaof the Departmeut of tho Si-cretary of State, con taining the names of officers, the office they held, the date wheu they were removed, and the authority by .which, they were removed. It ia simply ertified by the becretary ofState. Thia is a cony which I hold jiu my,handa, . and I am not prepared to aay how it waa certified. It i'-- in evidence, and I think it will be found to,be simply a letter from the Secretary of. State, saying there 'were foi^nd frora the records of his department these facts, ' and not any formal certiflcate. If, however, the Senato should think ^hat itis aliBolutelv nocesijary, or underj.the circumatances-of these cases, proper to reqiiire their certificate of the copies of the ' entire acts. ' instead ofi taking the names, dates an4 other particulara , frora tho rccordB, iu the form in which we have thought irio«t convenient, which cer- tainiy tafces'iip less Chilo-^aud Bpaoe than the other would, we must apply for and obtain them. If there is a techni cal difficulty of that sort, it i^ one which we must remove. Wepropote, when we have cfoBcd the offer of tliia species of proof, to ask the Senate ta direct its proper officer to make a, certificate from its records fromthe beginning to the end of all sesfiiona df the Senate, from the origin down to the ' preeeut time^ ¦That is what we snail call for at. tne proper tirae, and, that will supply that part of the difficulty which the gentlemaa suggests. The other part is, that it does not appear that -the President did not follow these removals by the proper nominations. WeU, it does not appear, but if the gentleman proposes to , argue thatjtke Prottidont did follow tLiora up by iramediate nomiuationsr he will, find undou^tedlythat the records of the Navy, Department, from which this statement coraes, CHU furniflh no Such thing. Therefore thatobjoction is grounuleaa. Mr. BOTLER said the President's counsel had judged 1 the raanagers had takeu any particular course, that tnuit be the right 0^0. the one which they well; that when t ought to follow, the managers would accept aa being the last exposition, 80 far aa they were concerned. But the difficultv was that he {Mr. Butler)' had asked them if they otijected to the tcatirnony in qnestibn', and they made no objection. J^ they had, ne might have been more formaL They went to tho wrong sources for evidence. These things wore to bc aoucht for only in the Stat* Department, Where appeared all tho circumatances connected with the removal or appointment of any otficer, bv and twith the advice and conaent of the Senate, and they .could have got all these particulars there, precisely as given in the caae of Mr. Pickering. „"^,,., Mr. OyETIS-;Dooa the honorable manager understand '¦ that under the laws of the United States all of thu ^c of- ¦ hcer B must be comraissioned bythe Secretary of t-tate, and the fact appear m hi« departraent. including tlir^ otii- ¦ cera of the Interior, tho Treasury, the War aud the Navy* Departments? .* Documentiiry Evidence. Mr. BUTLER— With the single exception of the Trea^ sury, I do, and it will so appear. Mr . BUTLER proceeded to say that the coniraissions of the persona named in the memoranda as appoihted, coiild have been found iu the State Department. If it were a mere matterof form, hs would care nothing about il. and if tho counsel would sav • that they would put iu the exact dates of the nomiuatiotia, [ he Would havo no objection. Instead of that they sought to put in part of a transaction, leaving the propccutiou to looJt up the rest of it. He quoted from Brightley'a Di;:nst, that all books, papers, and docuraents of the War, Navy, Treasury, and Post Office Departraents, and the Attoraey-^General's office, mav be copied aud ceitified under seal, a-iin the State Departraent and with tho i-ame force and effect. This law of February 22, 1849, referred to that in regard to the Secretary of State, whioh waa dat«d February 15; 1789, and whichmade such copies of recorda, when properly certified, legal evidence equally with the original paper. Tt gave no pjght to raake extracts liko these, which wCro the gloss, tiro interpj-etation, the colla,- tion, the diaguoaia ofthe record to the clerk of that depart ment. Tho Chief Justice stated that he would aubmit the ques tion to the Senate. Senator HENDRICKS asked whether the managers ob jected on the ground that the papers should be given in full, so far as tbey relate to ijiny narticular question. Mr. BUTLER replied iu the anirmativo, Mr, CONKLING sent the followiug question to the Chair :---Do the counsel for the Ytspondent rely upon any statute other than that referred to? Mr. CURTIS did uot mean that any officer was antho rized to state what he pleased^as evidence. They did not offer these documeUts aa copies of recor'ds relating tu the cases named in the documenta themBclvea: they were documents of the same character as that which the mau- acerBhadpiitin, Mr. EDMUNDS aeked whether the evidence was offered aa touching anv question or final cohclimion ot factj or raerely as jriviug the Senate tho hiatory of the practice un- ' der connideratioB. Mri CURTIS —Entirely for the last purpose. Mr. BUTLER aaid if thia evidence did not go to any isaue of fact, the managcrij would havo no objection. Mr. CUETIS-.-I would pay, lost there shonld be a mis apprehension, that it wont to matters of practice under the law. ' Mr, BUTLER— Well, if it poea to matters of fact, we ob ject that itia not proper eTidence. Mr.'BVAETS thquglit it mi be adopted by the Senate, as an anawer to the, con-' stantly recurring questions on the admissibility ol testimony. The paper was read by the Clerk, express ing the opinion that, considerma; tbe character of tbia proceediajr, beinga trial of 'impeachment before the Senate of tbe tTnlted States, and not a proceeding by indictment in an inferior court, and that membera are judges ofthe law as well as of fact, from whose deci-^ 'sion there is no appeal, and that, therefore, the ordi nary reai-ons for the exclusion of evidence do not exist, and, therefore, it'is deetned advisable that alii evidence, not trivial or obvioualy irrelevant, shall bff .admitted^ it beiqg understood that in ord^r to decide Its valueit shall be carefully considered on its liual judgment. .Mr.^ CONNESS moved to lay tbe paper on tbe table,^ whicli was agreecl to by the following voter— YffiAB.— Meaars. Buckalew. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole. Conkling, ConuesB, Corbett, Cragiu, Davis, Dixoo,; Doolittle,, Drake, Kdin^LindSfl Forry, Fessenden, Freling! htiyseu, llsirlftn, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, MornlL (Mj.), Morrill '(Vt,)» Patterson (^f. H.), Pomeroy, Earn-, sey, Saiilsbury, .Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, WilliaiflB, Yates 123 ' ' , N.A,Y8,-r-Mes9ra. Anthony, Fowler* G-rimest Mioi'ton, Pat-, ter/^nu (TOmi.), Sherman, Suniner, Vau Winkle, Vickers, WiUey, Wilson-11, . ,' The Chief Justice directed the court to pi'oceea, ' IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 143 Mr. Erart'fl Remarks.l Mr. EVAETS said:— Mr, Cbief Jastice and Stna- tiDTB, I am not able to announce the recovery of Mr- Stanbery, but I think, had ijot the weather been so entirely unfavorable he would have been able to ap pear, perhaps, lo-day. He Is, however, eonvalesceut, out nevertheless the situation of his health and pronei' care for its restoration prevents us from having much opportunity for consultation during this sessioh ofthe court. We shall desire to proceed to-day with such evidence as may be properly produced, in bis absence, and may occupy the session bf tbe conrt witb that evidence. We shall not desire to protract the exa mination witb any such object or view, and if before tbe ©lose of tbe ordinary period of the session we Bhall coma to the end of tbat testimony, we shall ask for an adjournment. JHr. Curtis OfTers Documentary Evidence. Mr. CURTIS said-Mr. Chief Justice. I offer two ffocnraents received tbis morning<. coming from the Department of State, in character precisely similar t.o B«me of thoae received yesterday. They are continu ations of what was pot" in yesterday, 80 as to bring the evidepce ofthe practice of the governmfiut down to a more recent period. Mr. CURTIS— I will now pnt in evidcnoe, so that they will be printed in connection" with this docu mentary evidence, two sta;«menta furnished hy the Secretary of the Senate, under the order of the Senate, one showing the begintiiug and ending of each legis lative sessiou of Cougcess from 1798 to 186S, the other beinp a statement of the be^^inning and ending of each special session of tbe Seuate from 1789 to 1S6S, They were considered as read. W. S. Cox on the Stand. "Walter S. Cox, ^wom in behalf of the respondent, andexarainedbyMivCURTIS— I residein Georgetown : i am a lawyer by profession ; I have been engaged la tbe practice of law ten years in thia city, in the courts of the District; I was connected professionally with the niatter of Geueral . Thomas before the Criminal Court of this District; my connection with that mat- tiM- began on Saturdav, the 2ad of February. Mr. BUTLER— If I bave heard the question cor- rftcLly, the question put was:— When and under what circumstauces did your connection with the case of General Thomas before the Supreme Court of thi» !Dl*trict coBimence ? To that we objoct. It is im- posiible to see how the employment of Mr. Coi to Bte.fend General Thomas could have anything to do ^ith this caae. We put iu that Mr. '^Tbomas said that (f ic had not been for tbe arrest be shnuld have taken possession by force of the War Office. They theu Eodnced the record— the affidayit. Now, I do pot iopose to argue, but I ask tbe attention ofthe Senate the question whether the employment of Mr. Cox b^ Mr. Thomas, as coansel, the circumstances under whichhe was employedi and tbe declarations of Mr. ^omoa to his counsel, can be put in evidence under any rule ? The circumstances are too trivial, if it was leaally competent. ^r. CURTISi-I underetand the qnestion to he that we cannot show that General Thomas eraployed Mr. Cox as his coansel, and that we cannot show the de clarations made by General Thomas to Mr. Cox as bis connsel. We4o not propose to prove either of these facta. If tbe gentleman will wait loug enongh to see what we do propose, he will see that tbis ob jection is not relevant. To the witnesi*— Now. state when aud by whom, and under what circumstances, yOu were eraployed in this matter? Mr. BUTLEK— Stop a mement. ¦ I object to the why and tho by whom and under what circu iipitances this gentle- nian wag employed. If he was employed bythe President, that is worse in my judgment than if he was emjiloyed by the other. I desire the question to be put in writing. The Chief JuBtic'e— The Chief Justice sees no objection to tlw question as an introductory question, but he will put itto the Seuate if any Senator deslresat. No vote being called for, the Chief Justice directed the witness to answer the question. , , Witness— On Saturday, February 22d, a messenger cal led at my houee and stated touie that ,Mr. Seward desired to seo mo immediately. . , , Mr, BUTLER— I object to the declarations of anybody. The Chief Justice intimated to the witness that he need nOtstato what Mr. Seward said, Witnesa— The moBsage atated further that he was to take mo immediately to tho Presiffeut'i! house ; I acconi- Sanied him to tho President's hoUio, and found the Proiir ent and General Thomas.alone there. ^ ¦. Q. About what hour was this^ A. About fi-vo o'clock in the afternoon ; atter I was seated the PreBident stated^ Mc.BUTLEI^-Stopa moment;! obi<3Ct to statements 1 of the President at five o'clock P. M. (A titter in the court, some Senators lanehing outriiht.) Senator EDMUNDS aalcpd that the offer of evidence bo put in writing, so that Seuators might undeustand it pKa- cisely. . I -¦ The propositiou was roducod so writing, as follows :— Wc Oner to prove that Mr. Cox was employed proffes- , Eionally by the Preaidont, in thiC jprepence of General Thomas, to tako such legal procecd^iogs in the caso tbat had been commenced agftinBt General Thomas as would bo effectual to raise judicially tho quei'tion ofMr. 8ta»-' ton's right to have and hold the office of Secretary for tbo Departmeut of War againut tho authority of the Presi^ dent, and also an order to obtain a writ of qua warranto for tho same purpose, and we-iha^l expect to follow np this proof by cvidenco of what was done by the wituoss in pursuance of the above employment," Senator EDMUNDS asked wbat was the date of thie interview? ¦ "Mr. CURTIS replied that it was the 23d of February. Mr. BUTLliU-Thisteetimony has two objections, Mr. President and Senators, The nrst is, that after the act done and after the impeachment proceedings were agreed upon before the HoiiEcand after Mr. Stauton had Bought to protect himself from being turned out of office by force, the President then sends, aB it is proposed to prove, for Mr. CoX the witness, and Rives him certain directions. It Ik alleged that thoie directions were that he should Bde out a QUO warranto. I had supposed that a writ of qhw war ranto was to be filed, if at all, by the President ; but as that writ has gone out of u»e, an information iu the nature of a ovo warranto is a proper proceeding. Now, let ua sec, juat here, how tho case stands. The PreNidenthadtoi^d General Sherraan that the reason why he did not reply to tho law ycrs was that it was impossiple to mako up a case. , One of the Senatora askod him to repeat hia answer, and he r^ peated it; he EayB,:—"The President said:— 'I am told by the lawyers thatit is imposaible to make up a case.' " Now, after he had been told that, and after he had been convinced of that, h6 Still undertakes to show you her© that he made the removal of Mr. Stantou in order to mako up a case which hohluiaulf h^d declared it was imposaibld to make up. He, was couviuced that nb caso could by po^ eibility be brought into court except from the declarations aud threats of his officer (Mr. Thomas) to turu by force M*, Stanton out of the War Department, Ho then sends for a very proper coumel— as I nave uo do,ubtthe Senate wifl be quite convinced before we get throughi— and having gijt hira there, lie undertakes to inako up a case for, the Senate* before whieh he was about to be tried. Now they say they expect to prove that the President wanted a case made up to go iuto court, and that in pui^ Buanceof that Mr, Cox so acted. Mr. Cox canuot bo pes^ mitted to testify to that, for another person in the couneel themselves have put in the record what imports absoluto verity, an ¦ what cannot be contradicted by parole or othei evideace, that General Thouias was disminsed ; on motion of his couniel^ the caie waa dismisHed,, aud, therefore, wo olrject in the hrst place that these declarations oi the Pr&> sid'ent to his lawyer, after the fact and after he was in pro- cees of beiuK impeached, ahallbe put in evidence. We oth ject, then, that what was done in court may not be provea exceptby the record: then we object farther that this whole proceediug ia between other partiea in .the court. There ia no evidence bo far as itia put inhere, andthe whole record i^ put in to show that the President went into that court and asked to havo that case carried on, or that he uiadu himself apparent in it. He does not appear on tho record; h« does not appear as employing counsel. It looks on the record as though it was a case against General Thomas, and the court dealt with it as . against General fhonias. If the President had decided to have the cave decided as a ffroat conati tutional n^n obsta^ the court would, have decided it. All that appeara was that thia witness appeared as counael for Geueral lliomas^ and tho question was as to whether Geueral Thoraas should beheld under bond, or whether, under the clrcun^ stances, he was likely to appear and ansvver when tha ^aiid jury sat, it bciiig then found out t^at thero was no •• danger from hit personal action, by silence. Mr, EVARTS— Mr. Chief Juatice and Senators, I trust thfit I may be excused for saying that none of tlie Bugge»- tiOUB by tne leamed aud honorable manager appear to tis to have any bearing on the.. question of evidence uow b&. fore UB. He aays that the Attorne.v-General has, by law, no oiUcial function in any court except in the Supreme Court of the United St.ate8, and no gito warranto proceed ings can be commtinccd there, aa has heretofore been eonr tended on the part of thp managers, and in reference to which no dispute has arisen, can only be, made by issuing on the part or the government, ou the part of tho officer who has boen excluded frbm office ; and it maj^ appear that if this adhenion of the Attorney- Geueral, or his ap- . proval, that the proceeding should be taken bj General Thomaa' professional advjscr, is required, we shallbo able to produce that proof. Now it ia said that because tho President told General doctrinejof ratqppel; ^ ___,„„_, ? auceof the omcial action of tho President towards the removal bf Mr. 3tanton,>nd when Geueral Sherman hftd been aafced to reccivo from tho Chief Executive-authoritv for the discharge of tho duties of that office ad intervm, and white he (General Sherinjan) waa revolving in his own mind what his duty as a citizen, and a fViend and a ser Taut of the goVcrniuent was, he. , aaked the Prosident Whether the questioii could not be decided by lawKis 144 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW: JOHNgQN,: ^M"?; without making a deposit of. tho ad interim au- thontym an army,officer, and tbe Preeident replied that it was impoBsible to make up a case except "bv such ex- ecuUve action as to lay a basis for judicial Interference and determination. Then, in advance, the President- did not antieipate the necessity of being driven to this judicial controversy, be cause, in the alternative of General Sherman's accepting the trust reposed in huh, the President expected the re tirement of Mr. Stanton, and that, by hia acquiesrenco, no need would arise for further controversy in court or else where. 1 hat IS the condition of the proof as it now stands betore the Senate, or as we shall contend that it now mand)?, in reference to what occurred between the Presi aent and General Sherman.- Wo have already seen inthe proof that General Thomas received from the President on tho 21st of February this designation to take charge of tbe office from Mr. Stanton ar he retire^, and his report to the President in the first, instance of what was regarded . as equivalent to an acqjii- escence by Mr. Stanton in that demand for tho office, and fts surrender to the charge of General Thoraas, It is there Buown m evidence that General Thoraas waa arrested on the morning of February 22, and that before he went fo the court he communicated the fact of his arrest to the Pi'eBideut, and received the President's response that that was as be wished it should be— to have the matter in owirt. Now we propose to show that on the evening of the same flfty, the matter being thus in court, the President did take ftup a8 hia oontrovefsy tobe determiued by the highest Ju dicial tribunal of the country, by fhe most rapid method as between him aiid ft&i Stahton, his position was such that he was estopped froflil denying the constitutional and legal effect of the provi* ; sioii. Thereupon it was argued that I clainled, on the part of the managers of the House of RbpresentativeEii that the President was estopped from denying the constitutimiaTit^ of the law here. . and the learned counsel, rnnniug ba'cfc tb Coke, and coming down to the present time; nave en* i deavored to show tjiaf the doctrine of estoppel did not . apply to law. Whoever* thought that it did? I thinks ithei'e ifi only one poihtwbcre the doctrine of estoppl ap plied in this case, and that ia, that counsel should bD ' estopped from miarepreeeuting the arguments of their opt'' ponents, 'and thus makiug an argument to the prejudice of - them, 'I . 'i That.iB an application of ,the doctrine of estoppel whi^ ( I want carried out throughout , tlii^ trial. Ihavp not said,, that the Preaident was ttstopped; by h'is dedlarations to,' General Sherman, from ahowing that' he attempted to put' this man for ward.as hia counsel. - 1 l^ave only said that the fact that ho flpoke' iio General Sherman, lyia said tb hira •thatit was impossible to make up a casc.^hows that he ehall not bc allowed, after the fact, to afttcmpt to get up a > defense lor himself by callinfi iu this counsd.^ Now, it is said, what lawyer Would suppose that ill would appear upon the record in the caae against General ' Thomaa,' that the President of the United States wae iis ' the -con trp versy? I say that fair dealing, honesty of pur* pose, UpriEhtness of action and franknoM of official posi*! tion would havo made .-hira appear in that case. The '¦ President of the United States, if he had eraployed counsel i for General Thoraas in tbe case, should have sgnt hi& counsel into 'Court, who should then have stated :—"Mfj, , Chief Justice:— We are here appearing at the instance of , the President of the United States for the purpose of.' , trying the great couatitutional queetiou which he has en* ! deavored to raise here, and fop that purpose we want tft,| get it into the Sui>rerae Court of the United States ;" and " then, if the Chief 'Justice of^his District had refuaed to, hear that case, there might have been aome ground for the •' , UBO of the harsh word of "evasion," which the counsel has applied. / ' ' The counsel has said that- that question was evaded. B^ whom? It muat haye been by jthe Chief Justice of tho Di».» trict, for he alone made the decision* He said that Mtt f Stanton had this case 'conducts ao as to evade a decisioifc The record of the court shows that this man Thoraas wag discharged on motion of hia own counsel. If his counsel' had not moved hia discharge, I venture to say heiwouldnol- havoboen digcharged. Certainly there is no evidence that he would have been. Now, therefore, in that view that* Thomas was disch argcd bn the motion of hia coun8el,couId they go back to-day and tell ua what they thought, in ordes to sliow, through Mr, Cox, that the Chief Justice evaded the point? i . . . : If you allow Mr. Cox to come in ' here and put Jn decl» rations made to hiraby the President, thon I suppoae wo miist enter into tho merits of Mr. A. B, and all sorts of cbun?cl whom the President brings ibout hiin, and ws will have to bring before you the Chief Juatice, to get hjs ' account of the matter; thus getting up a eide-door issueb'' anfl. try whether the proceedings in the ,Supreme Court oi ' the Distriot of Columbia were regular or otherwise. I, Will not eay that this is designedly, but I say it isajitii^, ¦tically contrived for the purpose of leading us awayfroip, the real issue, I never heard -siich a propoaition in any court. A single word oa to this matter of gwo warranto ' I have had a reasonable aegrfeo of practice on this que*' tion, and I undertake to aay that every lawyer knows tliat au iuformation in the nature of a quo wofrranto dopr to the declarations of the Preeident he can keen you i *PW ^," '^°'?."???' 4»^il ^^^^ July i aye, until next March, iPrec'iaely as his frieiidi m the House of Repre-^ontatives - threatened they would do if the impeachment was can- ried hero. To he forewarned is to be forearmed. Senator* : his defenders in the Houso of Representatives, when argUT ; ing agamst this impeachraeiUt.8aid^-"lf you brln.? it to tne Senate wo will nuiko you foUow all the forma, and his official life will bc ended before you can get through .thfi" trial of irapeachmcut.V That wAs tho threat, and whaa " your summons required thePresident, as every suraraons doDB, to come in and file his answer, he asked for forty days to do so. Ho got ton. and ho then asked for furthet , 5 fl^i'a'H.y^*"®^'^^'^^*'*^*' '^'*y*''*^^o 1^6«Q expended since he hlei^ hiH answer, or rather since he>ought to have filed ms answer, and thirty-three dayfli^mce he actually med'it IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON; 145 K! Of thnt time but six days have been expended bu the port of the managers iu the trial, and about six dava havo been expended by the counsel for the defense. The otlier twenty odd working dayt, while the whole countrv ia calling for action, and while raurder is stalking throuph tho couutry unrebuked, have been used in lenity to hira aud hie counsel, aud we are now asked to go into an on-- tirely side-door issue, which is neither relevant nor com- itcut under any legal rule and which, if it was, could iVe no effect. Senator FRRRY sent up' in writing the following ques tion to the President's counsel:-^ i '*Do the counsel for the Preaident undertake to contradict or vary the atatement of the docket entry produced by them, to the etfect tliat General Thomaa waa discharped by Chief Justice Cartter on the motion of the defendant's couuBel?" Mr. CURTIS— Mr. ChiefJustice, I respond to .the ques tion of the Senator, that counsel do not expect or desire to oontradi<-,t anything which appears upon docket evidence. The evidence which we offer of the employment of this profespiunal gentleman for tho purpose indicated, is en tirely consistent with everything which appears on the docket. It is evidence, not of declarations^ as the Sena tors may perceive, but of acts, because it is well settled, fi* all lawyers know, tbat there may be verbal acts aa well 06 other acts, and that the verbal act is as much capable of proof aa a physical actis. Now, the employment for a particular purpose of an agentv whether professional or otherwise, is an act, and it may be always proved hy tho necessary evidence of which it is susceptible, gamely :— .Wliat was said by the party in order to create that em ployment. , That is what we desire to prove on this occaBion, The fllsmissal of General Thoraas, which has heen referred to, and which appeare on the docket, was entirely subsequent to all these proceedings. It took placo after it had becoine Certain in the miudof Mr. Cox and of his associate coun sel that it was of no use to endeavor to follow the proceed ings fartlier. As to the argument or remarks addreseed by tlie honorable manager to the Senate, I have nothing to say. The.y do not appear to rae to require any answer. ¦ Mr. WILSON, one of tho managers, said :— I beg the in- flUlgeUce of the Senate for a few momenta.. I ask the members of this bodv to pass upon what we declare to be *hereal queation involved in the objection interposed to . le testimony now offered by the counBcl for the respon- ient. On tho 21st of February the Preaideut of the United Btates issued an. order removing; Edwin M. Stanton frora the office of Secretary of the Department of War. OU that same day he issued a letter of authority to Lorenzo Thoraas, directing him to take charge of the Department W War, and to discharge the duties of the office of Secre tary of War ad interim. ^hearticles based upon the violation of the Tenure of Office act are founded law in reference to quo warrdnto in all tho States with whose laws he was acquainted. He admitted that thero could hc..no writ of quo warranto or information in the na ture of the writ.'except on behalf of the pnblic. But tho question as to what, officer was to represent the public, and in what name the information waa to be ti'ied, do* pended npon the particular statutea applicable to the case.' Thoae statntea differ in tho different States. Under the laws of the United States, all proceedings in behalf of the United States in tho Circuit and District Courta wero taken by Distriot Attorneys in their own names, an^ all proceedings in behalf of the United Stntes in the Supreran Court were taken by the Attorney- Goneral iu his name. : ¦In reference to Mr. Cox, he expected to show an apnlicah tion hy Mr, Cox to the Attorney- Geu eral to obtain liis si^ nature to the proper information and the obtaining of thax ¦ eiguature. The Chief Juetice-Senatora, . the counsel for the PreSih dent offer the proof that the witneas, Mr. Cox, was era ployed profeBsionally by the President, in the presence of General Thomas, to take suchlegsil proceedings in the caatf which had been commenced against Gcneial Thomas as wbuld be effectual to raise judicially the quentionof Mr. Stanton'a legal right to continue to hold the office of Secretary for tho Department of War against the authority of tho Preeident, and also in reference to obtaining J writ of quo warranto for the same purpose ; and they state that they expect to follow up this proof by evidence aa to whal waa done by the \vitneBs in purauance of that employment The first article of irapeachraent, after charging that An. drew Johnson, President of the United Stattfs. in violarion of the Conatitution, iaaued orders (which have been fre quently read) for the removal of Mr. Stanton, and proceed^ to say such orders wero unlawfully ii^siied, with inten.* then and thereto violate the act entitled "An Act Regu lating the Tenure of Office," &c. The article charges, fi^st, that tho act dono wa>done unlawfully; and then it charges that the act was done with intent to acconipliah a certain result. That intent the President denies, andif is to establish the truth of that denial that the Cliief Justice underatnuds this ovidence now to be offered. It is evidence of an attemiit to employ counBel in the presenco of the PreBident and Gi3neral Thomas, and it is evidence eo far of the fact. It may be evidence, also, of declarsr. tiona connected with that fact. 'I'hie faet aud thoae do-^ clarations, which the Chief Justice nndcrstauds to be iu the nature of facte, he trunks are admiBsible inevidencoi Tho Senate haS already ou forraer occasious decided by a splomn vote that evidence of declarations of the Preaidentl to Gencial Thomas, and by General Thomas to the Presir dent] after this order was issued to Mr. Stanton, was adr rais.eiblc. It haa also admitted evidence to the same effect averred by tlie honorable managers It seeraa to me that this evidence now offered comea within the principlea of thia decision, and as the Chief Justice has alreadv had occasion to say, he thinks that tha principlea of thia decision aro right. It is a decit-ion pro per to be raadehy tho Senate sitting in its hi^h capacity as. a court of impeachment, and composed aa it is of lawyers and of gentlemen thorouglily acquainted with tho Duel. ness tran^ actions of life, and entirely competent to weigh> any ovidence which may be submitted. Senator DRAKE called for the yeas and nays on admit ting tho evidenc'e. ¦ ¦ The vote was taken, and resulted— yeas, 29; nays, 21; a& followa:— ' ¦ Ybas.- Messrs. Anttionjy, Bayard, Buckalow, Corbett* Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelingbuyj Grimea, Henderson, Howe. Johnson, McCreery, MoitiII* SMe,), Morton, Norton, Pattersou (N, H.), Patteraon. Tenn.), Ross, Saiilebury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, rrninbull; Van Winkle, Vickers and Willey-29. Nays.— Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, jChaudler, Conkling, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Forry, Harlan. Howard, Mob^ fan, Morrill (Vi.), Nye, Poraerov, Ramsey, Stewart, 'hayer, Tinton. Williams, Wilson and Yates-Sl. Mr, CUKTIS then resumed the exaraination of the wi*., nesses. as follows:— , „ > 6. Now state what occurred botwoen Genoral Thoraa» and the President aud yourself on that occasion' A. Afte*. Eeferring to the appointraent of General Thoraas as Secre- tary of War ad interim, tho Proaiijent stated that Mv Stanton had rofused to surrender possoasion of the depart lUcnt to General Thoinas, and thfi.t he desired the neces aary legal proccediuga, to be instituted without delay to 146 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. tbst General Thomas' right to office^ and to put him in pos- sesaiou; I inquired if the Attornov-Gonefaiwas to act in the matter, and whether I could cCnsult with him; the Prefident stated that the Attorney-G^eneral had been so much occupied in the Supreme Court that he had not tirae ,to look into the. authorities, butbe would be glad ifl would confer with him ; I promised to do bo, and stated that I would exaraine the suDJect immediately, and soon after I took my leave. ' Q. When you left, did you leave General Thomas and tbo PreBident there? A. I did; I do not auppose I was tbereraore than twenty minutes; Heft my own house in a carriage at five o'clock, Q, State now anytliing that you did subsequently in con- abgnence of that employment ? „ . , . . Mr. BUTLER, to the Chief Justice— Does the President decide that anything which Mr. Cox did afterwards tend to show the President's intent ? *,^ The ChiefJuFtlce reraarked that the witness could pro- laceed under the ruling ofthe Senate. . , ^ ^ Witness, after reflecting on the subject— Supposmg that ^e— Mr. BUTLER, interposing— I thipk that suppositions can hardly come in. I never heard of a witness' suppositions being putin evidence. Witness— I carae to the conclusion- Mr. BUTLER, again interposing- We douH want your eODcluBiou ; we ^vant your acts. ' Mr.' C URTIS— It is a pretty important act for a lawyer to The Chief Justice- In relation to thia matter, yes. Mr. BUTLER-I should like to hear the judgment of the Benate upon thia. . The Chief JusticG-Counsel will please put the question fn writing if any Senator desires it. If not, the witneaa will proceed. Senator HOWARD asked that the question might be, re duced to writing. The question having been reduced to writing, was read, BBfoHows:— "'State what conclusion you arrived at aato the proper courae to be takeu to accomplish the instruc tions giren you by the President?*' Mr. BUTLER-I do not object to that. What I objected to, was the witness putting in hia thoughta and his reason ing, bv which he came to a con'clusion. What ho did, was one thing: what he thought, what ho determined, what he wished and what he hoped, depended aa rauch upon his state of mind, and upon whether hewas loyal or disloyal tn his dii'position j that we do uot want. The Chief Juatice— The Chief Justiee will direct thOt witness to confine himself to the conclusions to wblch he, oame, and to the stepa which he took, Witnesa— Havine come to the conclusion that the roost expeditious way of bringing the question in controversy before the Suprerae Court, was to apply for ^irit of habeas corpus in the ease of General Thomas. The case was in proper phape for it; I had a brief interview with the Ati torney-Gencral on Monday niorning, and this course met his approval; Ithen proceeded to act with couniel whom, General Thomas had engaged to act in hia behalf in tbe flrst instance.; in order, however, to procure a writ of habeas corpus it waa neceaaary that the comraitraent should be made hy a eourt, not by a juntice in chambers, «r by a justiqp.of the peace: General Thoraaa had boen jwrrested and previously examined before one of the Jus tices of the Supreme Court of the District at charabers. and bad been held to appear.for further examination on Wed nesday, the 26th ; on Wednecday, the 26th, the Criminal Court was opened, Chief Justice Cartter presiding, and he announced that ho would then proceed to tho examination of the caae against Genoral Thomas'. Mr, BUTLER— We object to any proceeding in court being proved, other than by the records ofthe court, Mr. CURTIS— We wish the witness to stato what "be did in eourt. It may havo resulted In a record and it may not. Untilwe know wbat be did we cannot tell whether it resulted in a record or not. There may bave heen am ineffectual atterapt (to eet intofcottirt, ^^ ^ ., > Mr, BUTLER— I call vour attention, Mr. President and Senatora. 'to the ingeniouuneas of that speech. Ihe wilh ness teetified that the court had opened, and ho was ^oiug onto sav what theChiefJuBtice,.Cartter, announccdina criminal court. , ; Mr, CURTIS, interposing— Will the honorable mdnagw give me one momen*. , I aaid, andjintendcd to be ao Uo* derstood, that there waa a Chief Justice sitting m a mn. gisterial capacity, iand alao. aS'Mr. Cox stated, he wap si^ tine there holding tho crinaiual court. What we doeire ft) prove is that thero was an effort raade by Mr. Cox to fet thin case transferred from the Chief Justice, in his capacity ae raagistrate^ into and before the Crimiual Court, and we wish to show what Mr. Gox did in order to obtain that. Mr. BUTLER— If the Senate were to try Chief Justfcs Cartter aa to' whether he did right or wrong, 1 only deiire that he ahnll have counsel here and be allowed to defenfli himaelf. I never heard of the proceedings of a court, or o» a magiBtrate, attempted to be proved in a tribunal whei(9 be was not ou trial, by the declarations of tbe counael m the criminal,' -• The Chief Justice— The counsel will reduce the question tn writing, and the Chief Jastice will submit It to tha Senate, '¦,,,. Tho queation beingredwced to writing, was read, asfo* lows :— " What did you. do toward getting ontia writ of hsp beas corpus under the employment of the President?" Mr. BUTLER— That is not the question that we have been debasing about, I made an objection, Mr. Presideni^ that the Witneaa should not state what took place at court, and now counael puta a general question which, evades that. Mr. EVARTS— Our general question is intended to draff out what took place in court. ' » Mr. BU'J'LER-Then we ohject, Mr. EVARTS— Then we understand you. but I do no* want to be catechised abwit it. ¦ The Chfef Justice put the question tc the court^iasft) whether the teatiraony would be admitted. ' Mr. BUTLER-I aat that there' be added to the nuestiim these words:— ''This being intended to cover what the witneaa heard in court." Mr. EVARTS— Tho qnestion needs no change whatovoR, It la intended to call out what the witness did towards getting out a writ of habeas corpus, and it covers what ha did in court, the very place to do it, Mr. CUKTI&-If any change or addition is to be made*) the question, I ahonld like to alter tho word "ennrt," be cause there may be a double meaning to that.^ What waa done or intended to be done was before a magistrate^' Mr.BUrLER-^Sittingasajudge? ' ' Mr. CURTIS— Sitting as a maRietrate. The questiou was then modified so as to read, ""Wltet did you do towards getting out a habeas corpus under tho employment ofthe President?'* The yeas and nays were taken and resulted- Yeas,- 37^ navs, 23, as followa;- Yeas,— Messrs, Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davli, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinshuyaen, Grimes, Hendricka, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Morton, Norton, Patterson (N. H.), Pattereon (TenD.l, Ross, Sanlaburv, Sherman. Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickera, Willey— 27. Nays.- Messrs, Cameron, Cattell, Chandlef, Conkling, Conness, Craein, Drake, Edmunds. Ferry, Harlan, Hofl^ ard, Howe. Morgan. Morrill (Vt.), Nye, Ponxeroy. Ramsey, Stewart, Thaver, Tipton, Williama, Wilson and Yatea-23, So the que.'iion was admitted. Witnesa— When the Chief Juatice announced that bS would proceed as an examining justice to investigate the ease of General Thoraas, not aa holding eourt, our fii;^*> plication to hira was to adjourn the investigation to tm Criminal Court, in order to have the aetion of that courjj after aorae little discussion the application was' refiiieJ; our next effort was to have General Thomas coramilKfl to prison, iu order that we might apply to that court fbi'ii writ nf habeas corpus, and upon hi^i oeing remanded bj that court, if it should be done, we might follow up -tM application by one to the Supreme Conrt of the Unitd Stat38; the coun.qel who represented the governnisnt Mopsrs, Carpenter and Kiddle, applied to the court tfian for a postponeraent. Mr. BUTLER (to the witness)— Stop-a moment. • To the Chief Justice— Does tms ruling apply to what una done by others? '. . ¦ : The Chief Juitice— If it is apart'pf the same fransWr fion, the Chief Justice conceives th!at it coraes within ttt , ruling. ¦ ' The witness then proeeeded :— The Chief Justice havin* indicated the intention to postpone the exatnination, VFfl directed General Thoraaa to decline gi'ving bailfor his si^ pearance, and to surrender himself into custody, and wfl announced to tho Judje that he was in cuptnd:^^, and then pre'fcntod to the Criminal Cdurt an application fnrtM writ of habeas corpus ; the counsel on the other sidfe ob jected that General Thomas could not put himself lup) cuatody. and that they did not desire that he should be dsj tained in custody; thf Chief Justico also declared thU he would hot restrain General Thonias of hia Iji berty, nor hold him, inor allow hirn to be h«lo iu custody; siippoBihg that he must either be eommitt*|.5T finally discharged; we theu clairaed that ho should Ofl diacharged, not supporiug that the counsel on the otMl side wonld consent to it, but supposing that thatwouW bring about his comraitraent, aod that thus wo wpuW havo an opportuniy of getting the habeas corpus; tnoV made no ob^ectiob, nowever, to hia final discharge, .asa IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. ...Ai^ 147 accordingly the ChiefJustice did dlwhargohim; imme diately after that I went in companv with the counsel Whora he employed. Mr, Merrick, to the President's house, and reported our proceedinga and the result to the Presi dent ; ho then urged us to proceed. Mr. BUTLER to the witneas-^ Wait a raoraent, TotheChief Justice- Shall wo have another interview TFith tho Prosident put in? , TheChiof Justice to the witneas— What date was that? A, Itwas tbe 26th of February, immediately after the court adiourned, Mr. C URTIS— We propoae to show that having made his report to the President of the failure of the attempt, he then received from the President other instructions ou that Bubjeet to follow up the attempt in another way. -Mr. BINGHAM— Do I understand that this interview with the Preaident was on the 26th? Mr. CURTIS-Itwas. Mr. BINGHAM— Two days after he had been Impeached by the Houso of RopresentativeB? MTr. CURTIS- Yea. Mr. BINGHAM— Two days after he was presented, and you are asking the Proaident's declarations to prove his own innocence? Mr. CURTIS— Wo do' not askfor his declarations, we aek for his acts. Mr. BUTLER^Two days after his arraignment at this bfcr? Wo ask for a vote of the Senate. '^he Chief JuFtice- The Chief Justice may have misnn- deratood the ruling of the Senate, but he ui^eratanda it to be this :— niatfacts ip relation to the intention of the Pre- . sident to obtain a legal reraedy, commencing on the 22d, may he pursued to the legitimate termination of that par ticular transaction, and, therefore, the Sonate haa ruled lliat the ¦roitneae ftiay go on aud tesUfy until that particu lar transaction comes to b, cloae. Now the offer ia to prove the conversation after the terraination of that effort in the District Court. The Chief Justice does not think that that is tlie view of the Senata, but be will submit the qiieation to the Senate, The quqation was submitted, and the evidence was ruled oot witiiout a division. By Mr. CURTIS— Q. After vou bad reported to the Pre- efuent, as you have stated, did you take any further step, or do any further act, in reference to raising the queation of the constitutionality of tbe law, or the Tenure of Office Act? ¦ . Mr. BUTLER-If what tho Presidfint did himself after no was impeached after the 33d of February cannot ho eiven in evidence. I do not see that what his counsel did for him can be. It is only one atep further. Mr, EVARTS— We may, at least, put the question, I fluppose. ' Mr. BUTLER— The question was put, and I objected -to it. . Mr. EVARTS— It was not reduced to writing. By direction of the Chief Jusiico,- tho question was put In writing, as follows:— After vou had reported to the President the resitlt of your effoT'ts to obtain a writ of babeascorpua, didynu do any other act in pursuance of the original instructions you had received fi'om the Preai dent on Saturday to contest the right of Mr. Stanton to ibutinne in the odice? If so, state what the acts were? The Chief Justice thinks the queatiou inadmiBuiblc, with in the lant vote of the Senate, but will put it to the Senate, if any Senator derirea it. Mr. DOOLITTLE a»ked a vote. Bjf request of Mr. SHERMAN, the fifth article was read was proposed to show a lawful in- by the Secretory, Ttfr. EVARTS said it Jem. Mr. HOWE— If it ia proper^ l^wOuld like the first ques tion addressed to the witness read aj{niu. The Chief Justice— On which tho ruling took placo ? ; Mr, HOWE-No. - Mr. EVARTS-The offer to prove? Mr. HOWE-The offer to prove, Tlie off'er to prove was agaiu read. The 'Chief Justice decided tliat under the fifth article on tiie question of intent, tbo question waa admissible. Mr. HOWARD asked that the queation be put to thb Sen ate, and the queation was admitted by the following vote.; .Yeas.— Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalow, Davis, Dixon, Doolittfe, Fessenden. Fowlor, Griraca, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Morton, Nort9n, Patterson (N. H.), Patterson (I'onn.), Ro«, Saulabury. Sherman, Spraeue, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers and Willey— 27. ^Nays.— Me/jsrs. Cameron. Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, ConuQss, Cragiu, Drake, Edmunde. Forry, Freliuahuysen, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Morrill (Vt.), Nye,. Pomeroy, Eameev, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilaon and Yates-l23. Witness— Ou the same day or tho next, the Slst, I filed an information in the nature of a quo warranto; I think a delay of one dav occurred in the effort to procure certii- fied copies of General Thomas' coramiaaiou att Becretary of War ad interim; I then applied to tl;^ Diatrict At- torney to sign the iuformation in the nature of a quo wor- fanto, and ho declined to do so without inatruetions from the President or Attorney-General ¦ thii fact was commu nicated to the At torney- General, and the papers were tent to him, and we also gave it as our opinion that it wonld not be— ¦ ^ ,_..... Mr. BUTLER— Stop a moraeut; we object to tbe opinion glypn to the Attorney General. " air. EVARTS— We dqn't insist upon it. ' Mr, CURTIS— You' can now proceed to state what waa done after this time. A. Nothing Was done alter thai time by rae. On motiop of Mr. CONNESS. the Senate took a recea of fifteen minutes, at half-past two. j,^^JJ*Jo recess the witness was cross-examined by Mm Y?B MT^^ ^^^ practiced in Waahington always? Aa Q. Wero any other counsel aaaocisted witb you bythe Preaident? A. No, sir, nottomr knowlMge. Q. Were you counsel in that caae for the President, op tor treneral Thoraaa? rA. I conaidered myself counsel for tho Pre.«idcnt, „Qv^^jd you so .announce yourself to Chief Justko Cartter? A. I did not, Q. Then you appeared before him as eounsel for Gen, Thoraas? A. I did in that proceeding. _ Q. And he did not underatand in any wayjio far aa you P,®-'^Jpa*j;''»y':eredeBirinB t» do anything there in ber half of the President? A. Ihad mentioned the faet that I had been seut for to take charge of aorae proceedinga. Q, As oounsel for tho Prerident? A- Yes, sir: that I had been sent for by the President. Q. But did yon tell him that you were comin g into thia court as counsel for tho President? A. N o, I did not, Q. In auy of your discuesiouft ot questions bcforo ttio- court, did you inform tho court or counael that you dA- sacd to have the case put in frame ao that you could jret the decision ofthe Supreme Court? A. I don't tiiink I di* Q. Had they any means, cither court or counael, of knowing that that Was the President's nurpose or your^ ao tar as you were concemed? A. Oniy by tbe habeas corpus spoken ofin General Thomas' anawer. O , Nothing, only what they might infer? A. Yes; sir ; I had no conversation with thom whatever. Q. I am uot speaking of convernationa with counsel out^ sifie of the court, but Iam speaking of theproceedinKs to court? A. No, sir, Q. And, CO far as the proceeding iucbnrt were concerned, ' thore was no intimation, direct or indirect, that there was anyViflh on the part of the President or the Attomex* General to make a case to tert the constitutionality or the proprietyof auy law? A. There waa none that I reraeni. bor iu the prensnce ofthe Judge on the bench at that tii^ other than private intimations. Q. Your private intimations Lhavo not asked for; were! there any to tho counsel that appeared on the other aide? A. No, sir. Q. Theh, so far as you know, the counsel on the otho» side would only treat this as a queHtion of the rightsof peraonal liberty of Mr. Thoraaa? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, sir, it being your deaire to have that queation tested, and as you appeared for Mr. Thomaa. and as it inust have been done by conwat of the other side, the -pr* secutor, why didn't you speak to the opposite counsel, and' aalc to havo it put in frame for that? A. Because I didn't think they would conaent to it; we didn't want tolet them know what our object waa, O. Then you maant to conceal your object? A. We rather did ; they seeraed to divine it from the course thsiy took. Q. You say yon prepared papera for an information in tho nature oiAQUo warra7itot .A. Yea, sir. Q. What day was that? A. That waa either on Wedn?^ day the SOth or on the next day. Q. 26th or 27th of Februaryf A. I think it was on tj» 27th Q, Aud that was after the President was impeached? Jkt Yea, air. Q. Did you see the Preaident between the time that yon reported to him and the time when you got this papew A. I did not, wr ; I have never seen hira since. Q. You prepared that papor? A. Yee, sir, and carried itto tho Attorney-Gonsral, to th« District Attornev;! spoke to hira, and he aaid he muat have some order frora the Attoruoy->G*neral, or fhe Pro»ident. Q. Yea, sir ; aad then you weut to the Attomey-GoneraB A. 1 aenb the papers, Q, Did you apnd a note with them? A. I don't rec^J^ lect; I sent the information, either verbal or written, Q, Who did you send it by? . A . By Mr, Merrick or Ma Bradlev. ' Q, What Bradley? A, The elder. Q, Wa.i he concerned iu the matter? A, He apx>eared in court with ua, merely aa adviier to General Thoraas, Q. Joaeph R. Bradley appeared in tho District Court as attorney? A. He appeared in person, but not iu toe character of attorney, Q. Did he aay anything? A. Nothing lo the court. Q. Is that the man that was diabarred? A. Tho aameq ao that ho could not appear. Q. Well, after you sont these papers to tho Attomqyi. General, did you ever get them back? A. I did. Q. When? A. A fow daya ago. Q, By a lew days ago, when db you mean; since ycai have boon summoned as a witneas? A. 1 think not. Q. Juat before, I believo, preparatory to your being sup> moned as a witoes? A. N(^ not that I'm awaro of. t. After this case waa opened? A. After. , Ho\^ long after? A. I coiddn't say ; I think it was four or five days ago, -Q, Have you had any communication with theAttos^ ney-General about them between the time when you scni them and tho time when you read them? A. None m person Q. Had you in writing? A, No, sir. ^. Jhenyouhad none in anyway? A. Yes, sir; M Merrick did; it was more couveMent for him to see hii 148. IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSQN. ¦Q. Of which you only know from what he said? A. Yee, sir, Q. They were returned to you ; wiere are tbey now? A. lliave them in ray pocket. Q, AVcrc they uot returned to yoti for the purpose of ymir having thom when vou were called aa ia witneas? A. No, sir ; they came with a raessage. Q. How eo'on before' you were summoned? A. Notmore dan a day or two, a. On the same day? A. I think a day or two before. , To yoiir knowledge have those papers ever beeu pre aented to any judge of any court? A. They bave not. ,Q. Up to the hour that we are speaking, have you been flirected, citlier by the Attorney-General or by the Presi- . dent, to present them to any judge of any court? A. The papera came to me with the direction td use them as Mr. ' Merrick or inysslf chose in our discretion, e. Verbal or written? A, Verbal, to Mr. Merrick. . But Mr, Jrierrick was hot associated with you aa coun sel for the Prefident? A, He was not, aa I understood; he was counsel for General Thomas. Q, Was this movement on the part of General Thoraas, for the information, .made aa a quo warranto f A. No, sir; it was filed on the relatiou o^ General Thomas. / Q,. Have vou received, ia writing or verbally, to your self, any direction either from the President or the At torney-General,, to file those papers? A. No positive qcders. Q, Any positive or irapositive frora them to you? ^ Not immediately, Q, I don't mean through Mr. Merrick? A, The only flpmmunication I received was throujjh hiift. xQ^. Frora whom did hebringyou a direction or communi cation? A, From the Attorney- General. , Q: Who? A. The Attornev-GeueraL 6. Who is that? % Mr. Stanbery, Q. And thii3 was hve daya ago— why, he reeigned as Attor ney- Geu eral some fortnight ago!— How did be corae as Attorney General to speak by order of thePresident? A. I raeant Mr. Stanbery. , Q, Have you ever received any directions through Mr, Merrick from the Attorney-General officiaUv^ as a direc tion for the President's counsel through Mr. Merrick? A. All that I received was— ^ ^Eexcuse me, ,Q. Have you received any communication mr ough Mr. Merrick or anybody else frora the Attoruej'- General of the United Statea- not the reeigned Attorncv- Gcneral of th9,iUnited States? A. I have not, sir, frora anv (^ler. Q. Audvypu have uot received any from bim, either ver- BalGf otherwise, while he waa Attorney-General of the tlnitcd States? A. I have not, Q. Whenyou handed hira the papers was he the Attor ney-General? A. I believe so, sir^ Q, Could you not be certain on that point? A. I don't ftnow when he resigned. ¦ . Q. And the resignation made no difference in your ac- don? A. I don't think he hud resigned at that time ; I am very sure the papers were sent to him.within two or three flays after tlie duKiliarge of General Thoraas. • Q, An'l "tire returned by hira to you within four or five flays? A. Yes, air. Q. Four or five days from when? after he resigned? A. I think it was; yes, sir, Q, ao that viihen yoii told ua Mr, Merrick had brought it &om the Attorney-General it waa from Mr. Stanbery? A. Ves, sir. ' Q, You have received no coraraunication from thePre aident or Atto^'ney- General aa to what should be done with fllia proceeding? A. No, sir, Q, Then, so faras you know, there has not been any di rection or any effort from the Attornev- General or the Pre fiident, leaving out Mr, Stanbery, who isnot Attorney- ¦ Greneral now, to have anything, done with tnese papers? A. There haj^Taeen no directioh..I know, Q, No coramunication? A. No communication sinre the paper was forwarded to me, to go to the court for a moment, . Q, Did Mr. Merrick or yourself make a motion to have Mr,, Tliomaa discharged? A, Yea, sir. ¦ Q. Was he not in custody, under his recCgnizance, up to the time of making that motion? A. He clairaed that he was,'but tho other eide denied it, ^ Q, And to settle that question you moved a discharge? A. Yee, sir. , . * Q. And that was granted? A. It was. Q, Did you make that motion? A. \''es, sir. Q. So tliat, in fact, General Thoraas was discharged from custody on the mdtion of the President's counsel? Mr. CUKTIS^He has not said that. Mr. BUTLER-Excuse me. Q, If he was not discharged frora cuatody what was he fliachargi'd from? A. Diachargcd frora auy further deten tion or examination. Q. He could uot bo detained without being in custody, oould he? A. Not very .well. , Q. Then, I v.'i\\ repeat the gpestion upbn ivhich I waa in- tempted, ^vhetlier, in fact, Mr. Cox, »Mr. Thomas was not dieehargpd from custody, fronr detcntioh. from further being l)c](l to answer on that complaint upon tho motion 01 the Pre^fidcnt'B counsel? A. tie w^s, sir. Q. Now, theu. eir, was that information rii^ned by anv Attorney- General, past, present or to corae, so far as you know? A. No, rir. , ¦ , Richard T. Merrick, swoni on behalf bfrespondCiit— Ex amined b\- Mr. CURT,IS-Q. Whore do you reside? A. I jesidc in this city. ¦ •< - . . 5 ft. What is your prbfo^^gu? A. I ara a lawyer, air. Q. How long have yon been in that profeasion? A. ^ Nineteen or twentv years, sir, , i_ Q. Were you employed profcsssonallv in any way in connection with the matter of General Thomas befpre , Chief Juatice Cartter' A.J was. employed by General-i Thomas on the morning.of the 22d of February, to appe_ar in tlie proceeding about being brought before Chief Justice Cartter ' ¦ "" Q. Tn'the course of that day, the 32d of February, did you have an interview, in. company with General ihomaas or otherwise, with the President of the United States ?..j A. I went to the President's house for the purpose ot tak ing to the President the affidavit, &c., filed hy GeueraF: Thoma8»'and"coramuuicating to the President what had transpired in regard to the case, . , . Q. Did you communicate to him what had transpired in regard to the case ? :..:.„ ,,.,,.1^,1.. Mr. BUTLER -I submit, Mr. President, that that rs whally immaterial; thot Senate ruled in tho Prefiidcut's acts in employing Mr. Cox as.hia counsel. But what conk- munication toot place between the President and Mr. Moi rick, who v;ery frankly teUs us that he was employed b.y General Thomas as bis counsel, I think cannot be evi dence, , „ ,y 'i The Chief Justice was understpod to rule tbe question admissible. . , , 1 - : \ Mr. CURTIS— Q. State whether you comraunicated to the Presfdent, ih the presence of General Thomaa, whatj had transpired in reference to the oa«e. A. Mv recollec tion i?, that I communicated what hild transpired to the. President, in the abaence of General Thomas; that he waa_ not atthe E-xecutive Mansion when I called; th.at dunuSf the interview General Thoraas arrived, nnd the aainQj, coraraunication w.ia then made in a general converaatioujj s in which the Attorney-General. Mr. Stanbery, fjie Presi-t dent, Gener.al Thomaa and mvaelf participated, , ; Q. Please state whether, either from the Preeident him-. self or frora the Attorue»Goncral, in his presence, you re ceived afterwards any instructions or suggestians as to the- course to be pursued by you in General Thomas' case? In the first pl.ace. you raay fix,.if you ploaso, the hour oj the day-.vhen thia occurred on" the 23d? A. I tjjiuk thoprpr, ceediuga before Chief .Jufitice Cartter at qhambere, took place between ten and halt-past ten, to tjie best of ray re-. collection, about half-oast, and ' immediatelv after they concliided,. and they extended over a very snort perio^;!, ordered ccipiea of the papers tb be made, and as soonjas. tlicy were raade, I torik thera to the Executive mansio^: I thinki occupied probably-from thirty minuten to an hoiiB to make th,e copies, aud my impression is I reached,tha. Execntive inansi'^n about noon. , Q, Now you can answer the residue of the question, whether you received either from the Pre^^ident himself or the Attorney- General in .tho presence of thePresident, any dire'ctlons or Buggestiona as to the course to be taken by you as counpol in the case? Mr. BUTLER to Mr. CURTIS-Q. Do you ask now for the conversations? ' Mr, CUKTIS-r-T oak for directions to this gentleman. 4 do not care h n w fat' it goos. . j Mr. BUTLER-I think, sir, these converaations canngf be put in. This Is not the eraploying t^hd -sending there , of his connsel to dn anytliing, but gi«ing directions as to how General Thomas' counsel are to try this case. Mr. CURTISr-^I suppose it depends upon what was saii Thev might amount tb "^'erbal acts," aa they are called in the books, if this gentleraoaa so received and acted upou them, . I pupposothey thon passed out of the range of declarations. The question is \vhcther he received direo: tions nr sugeedtious from the President or the Attorney* Ge.jerdl. \ Mr, BUTLEB— The dif^pulty is this. Itia not the mere qnestion of the diiference between acts and declarations, although declarations make it one degree farther off. My proposition is that the President's actd, in giving diroo- tiona to General Thomas' counsel to defend General Thomas,that counsel not being employed by the President, cannot be evidence, whether acts or declarations, Mr. EVARTS— It does not follow that these iustrijctioire were to defend (jreneral Thoma?. Tho first of tha inquiry is, that the iustructioua were to make ivir vestigations, that this procoeding bring such as could be taken on behalf of the President, you cannot an ticipate what the answer raay bb.' An offer to show that the Attornev-Genoral, in tho presence of the Preaident. aa soon as the report of tho Hituation of thip case of General ThomiB war* made, gavo certain instructionw to thia gen tleman ofthe profession, in roforeuce to grafting upon that caw; the act of having a habeas corpus. ' .Mr. BUTLEK— I do not propopo to argu 0 it; the atat©- meut of it is enough. The ProBidont ha.^ uo more right td direct General Thoraas' lawyer than to direct rae. and thereupon thoy do " not offer the declarations of the Presi dent, but they offer the declarations of the- Pi'esident^a lAwyer.i-Att.irney-Geueral Staubery. now his counselTr-to bo put into the case ; thero is no fact on earth that to them is any good in tliat way. Tho offer of evidence was reduced to writing, as fol lows;- _, "We offer, tc^ prove that at the, hour of twelve o'clock^ noon, on the, 23d of FobruAry, on the firat communicatien with the Pret?ident aa to the situation of General Thomasf case, the P^e^;idont^ or tho At torney- Geueral iu his pre sence, gave the witness certain directions as to obtaining a writ of habeas corpus for tlua purpose of testing, judir cially, tho right .of Mr* Stanton to continue ^ to hold the olhco of Secretarj' of War against the authority of the Prc-ident," I The Chief Justice decided tbat tbe proof was admlssiblO IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 149 "• within the riUe adopted by the Senate, but aaid that ho would put the questiou to the Senate if any Senator de- ^ed it. No vote being called for, the examination was resuined. Mr. CURTIS— Tho question is, whether the President, or the Attorney-General in his presence, gavo you ^ny in structions in reference to the proceedlnga to obtain a writ of habeas corpus to test the rightof Mr. StantoU to hold the odice contrary to the will of the President? A. The Attorney-General, on learning from me the situation of the caae, asked if it was possiblo in any way to get it into the Supreme Court iraraediately; I told hira I waa not prepared to answer that questfon. Ho then eaid :— "Look at it, and see whether or not you can take it up to the , Supreme Court iraraediately onr habeas corpus, and have the decision of that tribunal." Aud I told hiui I would. Q. Subsoonent to that time, had you come into corarau nication with any gentleraen acting as counsel for the President, in relation to that matter? A. I examined the "fcOuestiOn aa requested by the Attorney-GenCral, and on the evening or afternoou of the 22d, and I think, within ' two or throe houra after I bad seen him, I wrote ' him a note. Mr. BUTLER— We object to the contents of the note being trivcm as evidence. Mr. CUUTIS to tho wituess— Stating tho result? Wit- ness. Stating the result of that examination. Mr. BUTLER— Whatever is in that note, you muat not state. ^r, CURTIS to the witness— You wrote him. a note on that aubject? Witness— I wrote him a note nn that sub ject, the following Monda.y or Tuesday, thie' being Satur- aav; I raet Mr. C^x. who was the counsel for the Presi dont, as I understood, audin consultation with him I com- miimeated to hira the conclusion I had arrived at iu tho course of the exaiilination on the Saturday previous; we having come to the same conclusion, agreed, to conduct the case together in harmony, with a view to accompli«h the coutemplatedresultof takingitto the Suprerae Court by a habeas corpus. . Q. State now anything which you and Mr. Cox did for the purpose of accomplishing that re?rult? A. Having formed our plan of proceeding we vvont into court on the , day on which, according to the 'bond, Gener.il Thomas was to appear before Judge Cartter, in chambers. Tbat was, I think, on Wednesday, the 26th, if I ara not raista- ,ken. Can I atate what transpired? Mr. CURTIS— Yea, so far as regards your acts, Mr. BUTLER-I respectfuUy submit once agafti. Mr, President, that the acta of General Thomaa's counsel, tm der the direction of the Attorney-General after tho Presi dent was impeached, caunot be put in e'\'idence. Witness— Willyou allow me to make a correction? , Mr. CURTIS-Certainly. Witness— You asked, when I next came in contact with any one representing the Preaident. I should have stated that ou Tuesday night, by appointment, I had an inter view with the Preaidont on tne aubject of thia case, and ti the proceedings to be taken on the following day, Mr. BUTLER— I don't see that that altera the queation, ,which I request mav be reduced to writine before 1 argue it, because I have argued one or two questions to-day, and then found other questiona put in their place. . TheChief Justice— Counsel will please reduce the ques tion to writing, Xhe question being reduced to writing, read a? followa:— "What, if anvthing, did you and Mr. Cox do in relation to accomplishing the reault you bave spoken of^" ' Mr. BUTLER— Does that include what was done in court? * Mr. CURTIS— It includes what was done before Chief , Juatice Cartter. _ „,.„,,, ,,.,.. The Chief Justice— The Chief Jnstice thinks it com petent, but he will put it to the Senate if auy Senator de- . iSf 0 vote having been called for, the queation was allowed 'to be put to the witneas, f ¦ Witnesa— To answer that question, it is necessary I should state what transpired before the Judge in charbbcra and in court on Wednesday, when all tliat we did was done to accomplish that reault ; wo went into tho room in tho Citv Hall in which the Crirainal Court held itsses^jion Ip tho raorning ; Judge Cartter waa then holding the term of the Criminal Court, and fhe Criminal Court was regularly adjourned ; after some business of the Oriminal Court was discharged, the Chief Justico aunouncedi that he was readv to hear the caae ot General Thomas. ' , The queation waa then suggested whether it should be heard in charabers or. before the court. The Chief Jusiico said he would hear it as in charabers. The Crirainal Court not having been then adjourned, the case was there- „upon called up. The counael appearing for Mr. Stanton, llorfor the government,,! Moaars. Carpenter and Riddell, moved that the case he continued or postponed until the fellowiug day, on the grounds of the absence of one or two ofthe witnesses, I think, and on. the additional plea of Mr Carpenter's indisposition; to that motiou, after a consultation with iny associates, Mr. Cox and Mr. Joseph H. Bradley, wno appeared aa- advisory coun sel for General Thoraas, I arose and objeoted to a postponement, stating that I was constrained' to object,. notwithstandmg the Plea of personal indisposition, to which I always 3^eldied, and that I ¦ objected now for the reason that this wns a case involving a_ question of great public interest aUd which the harmonioua action of the f)vernment rendered nesosaary to be speedily determined. elaborated that view, and Mr. Carpenter replied, ^eprc senting that there could be.no detriment to the publi(*Ber. vice, andhe earnestly urged the court for a postponement. TheChief Justice thereupon remarked, I think, that it was the firat time ho knew a caaO iu which tho plea of personal indisposition i of counael waa not acceded to by the other aide; that it was, generally suflicient; and, he went on to remark on the motion f up* ther, insorauch that I concluded that he would continuo the case till the foUowinj; day. As soon aa he snid that ho would continue the caf?o, we brwight forward a raotiop that it be then adjourned from before the Chief Juatice at Chambers to the Chief Justice holding the Criminal Court. That motion wa? argned hy counsel and overruled by tho Judge at Chambers, not in court. We then aub mitted to the .Judge, Mr. BUTLER interposing— Mr, Presidout, I wish siraply to he understood, eo.tnat I may clear my Pkirts of tho mat ter, that this all comea in undcsr our objection, and under the ruling of the presiding ofiicer. The Chief Juatice {with, aevere dignity in hi.* tone)~It comes in under the direction of tho Seuate of the United States. To the witneas— Proceed, air. Witness— We then announced to the Judge that General Thomas' bnil had surrendered him, or fchat he waa in tha cnBtod.v of the Marsl' al, and the Marahal was advancing to- wai'ds hira at tho time ; I think that Mr. Bradley or Mr, Cox handed rae* while on my feet and while making thnt an nouncement, the petition fbr the habeas corpus, which I then presented to the Criminal Court, which, having opened in the morninK, had not yet adjourned, and ovor which the Chief Justice waa presiding; I presented tho petition for the habeas corpus to th& Crimiual Court, re presenting that General Thomas was in the custody of the Miirahal, and I askrd that I shonld be heard. Mr. BUTLER- Was that petition in writing? Witness- That petition ^ a^ in writing. I believe I said it was handed to me by one of ray associates ; and, if my recollection serves me right, I havo seen the petition since ; it wae not signed when handed t& nie; General Thoraaa and Mr. Bradley wore sitting immediately behind rae ; I laid it down, and it was takeu'ub by soine of the reporters ; it was not regained for half au hour. Mr, CURTIS— After you had read it. what occurred ? Witness— After I.read it, a diacuwion arose on the pro priety of the petition, and the legality ofthe time of ita presentation; counsel on tho other side contended that General Thomas was not in cu-tody, and that it was a re markable ca.'^e ; I reraeraber that expreaaion of Mr. Carpen ter's, for the accused party to insist upon putting himself In Custody; we contended that he was in custody.and that he did not propose to put him-^elf in custody.; counsel ou the other side stated that they deaired neither that ho should be putin cuatody nor that he give bonds, because they were certain, froin his character and positiun, that he wonld be present to answer any charge that raight ba bronght apainat him. The Chief Justice replied tliat in view of the statement of counsel he would neither put hira in custody nor de mand bond fpr his appearance; hewas himself satisfied that there was no necessity for pursuing either courae ; W6 then remarked that if Geueral Thomaa was not in cnetody nor under bond he was discharged, and I think sorae one stated he ia discliarged; thereupon, in order that thero should be a decision in reference to the alternatives pre sented of his being placed in custody or discharged on the record, we moved for hia discharge in order to bring up tho mientiou offtcially of his coramitment ; hewas thereupon diachareed, Mr. CURTIS— I believe that is all we deaire to ask this witne.s3, ' ¦ Cross-examined bv Mr. BUTLER— Q. Were you counsel forSnrratt? A. I was. ' O: Waa Mr, C6x? A. He ^vfts not. Q, Was Mr. Bradley, vp'hd was advising counsel in these proceedings? A. Hewas. . , •, , Q, When you got to ,^he Executive Mansion that morn ing, you sav Thoraaa Was not there? A. I think not ; that is ray recollection. Q. Didyou learn when he had been there? A.I do not recollect whether I did or hot; bad I so learned I proba blv should have recollectedit. i Q. Did ybu not learn that Thomas was then over at the War Departraent? A. I do not recollect that I did, and I think I old uot. Q. Did you loam when be returned that he had been there? A. I do not recoUect. Mr, BUTLER- 1 will not tax your want of recollection anv further, (Laughter.), Edwin 0. Perrine sworn ahd'examined by Mr. EVARTS. Q', Where do you reaide? - A. I reside in Long Island, near Jamaica', Q, How long have you , beeu- a resident of that region? , A. Ihavebeen areaidcut of Long, Island over ten years,, Q, Previous to that time where did you reside? A. Ia Memphis, Tennosaee. < ¦ Q, Are you personally acquainted with thePresident of the Uuited States?' A, Iam. Q, For how lorig a time have you been so pereonjilly ac quainted? A. I knew Mr, Johnson in Tennessee for 'several vears before he left the State, having met him more par ticularly ou tho Sturap in political campaigns; I being a Whigand he being a Democrat Q. Haa that acquaintance continued to tbe preaent time?_^ A. It has, , „ , ™. ,_- ^ . ., Q. Were yon in the City of Washington m the month of February? A, I was. , . „ . ., . Q. For what period of time? A. I came here about the ISt of FebruarV-, or hear that time, aud reinained until the Istof March or last of February. . , , Q; During that timo were yoii at a. hotel or at a private house? A. I wa^ at a private boarding hbiiae. 150 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. O. Didyon have anv interview with the Prorident of. the cnited States ou the 31at of February? A, I did, O. Alone, or in company with whom? A. In company With a raember of the Hbuse of Representative*, ' Q. Who waahe? A. Mr, Sclye, of Rochester, N. Y. ft- ^^r^'^^^i*^ happen that you made-this visits Mr. BUTLER, interposing— I pray judgment, Mr, EVAETS— Thia i^ simply infroductory, notbine ma- Witness- Mr, Selye saidthat while be know the Presi- flent he never ,had been formally presented to hira, and un derstanding that I Was a friend of the President, and vkoII acquainted with himj he Asked me if I would not go up With him to the President's and then introduce hira. ^ Q. When did this occur? A. On the 20th, or the day :Detore, Q. Ana. your visit then on the Slst was on this appoint- nient? A. I made the appointment for the next day; I informed Mr. gelye, that it was Cabinet day, and that it waa of no use to gb till two o'clock, as wo probably would not be perraitted to enter, and he appointed two o'clock at hiB roora, iu Twelfth street, to meet hira for that purpose. Q. You went there? A, I went to Mr. Sel,vo's roora ; he caued a carriage, aud we drove to the President's house a little after two o'clo'ck. Q. Did vou have any difficulty iu getting in? A, Wc had; Mr. Cushan, the uaher at the door, when I handed him Mr. Selyeja card and mine; said that tho Presidout had aome of his Cabinet with him yet, and that no ono would be admitted;, I told him that I wiahed hira to go in and Bay tb the President or to Colouel Moore with my corapliraents- Mr. BUTLER— Interrupted the witneas. Mr. EVARTS^Was the fact that Mr. S^lye was ,a member of Conaress mentioned? Witness— Yes. Q, So that you got in? A. Yes. Q, Then you went up staira? A, Wo were up stairs t^on thia took|place ; we were in the ante- roora. Q. Then you went into the Preaident'a after awhile? A. Yes. Q. Was the President alone when you went in? A. Ho was alone, Q, Did you introduce Mr. Sclye? A. I introduced Mr, Selye as a member of Congress from the Rochester District, Q, Without reference to any other convereation, that occurred between you and -the President, or between Mr, fielye and you and the President, Icoinc now to what I auppoae to be pertinent to this case. Before thia time, h ad Vou heard that any order for the removal of Mr. Stanton had been made? A, I had heard nothing of it. Q. Had Mr. Selye heard of it, so far as you know? A. Bo far as I know, he had not; I found him lying down •irhtn I got to his room, at two o'clock. , Q. Did he then hear from the President of the removal Xa Mr. Stanton. Mr, BUTLER— I object to the statement of the Preaident to this witness, or to Mr, Selye, or to an.vbody el*e. If nis declarations made to all tne persona in the coifntry are to be given in evidence, thero ivould be no end to this caao. Everybody would be brought here, and where are* we to' stop? If there is to be any stopj it is now. Mr. EVARTS— The evidence is proper. The time to con sider abont the public interest was whpn tho trial cora menced. Of course it would be more convenient to stop the case at the end of the prosecution ; it would save the time of the country, ^ Mr. BUTLER— The question is siraply what waa said be tween the President and Mr. Selye, and Mr. Perrxue. I have the honor to object to it. ' Mr. BVARTS— I am reducing the queation to form. The offer of proof being reduced to writing, nnd handed . Over to Mr, Butler for, Hs exaraination, was read by the Clerk, as follows :-» " We offer to prove tbat the Preaideut then stated that he bad isaued an order for tbe removal of Mr, Stanton, and the eraployraent of GiJueral Thomas to perforra the Antiefi ad iftterim,; that, tliereupon Mr. Perrine said:— jBuppoaing Mr. Stantori shall oppose the order ; ' andthe President replied :—' There is no danger.' He then added;— Tt is only a teraporary arrangement. ,1 shall send into the Senate at once a good narae for the office," Mr. BUTLER objected. He said that this was mere narration, mero statement of what the Preaident had done and what he intended to do ; that it never was evidenco and nev^r would bo evidence in any organized court. Ho Aid not' see where any limit was to be putif such testi mony were received. If Mr. Perrine, who had been here tofore ou the Stand, could go to the President and ask auestions and be anewered. and then come to give evi- enco of his converaation with the President, why do so. If Mr. Sclye could go there, why could uot everybody elae go? Why could not tho Preaident make declarations to every man, aye, and every woman, too (laughter), of what he intended to do, and what he had done, and bring thom inhere tb testify and to instruct the Senato of the Uuited States in its duty as a High Court of Impeach- ttient? Mr. EVAKTS said he was not aware the credit of tho tcBtlmony was at all effected b^- tho fact that Mr. Perrino had been engagod in politics. Nor did he suppose that th^lt fact would assist the court in dctermingini? what was cvi- donee. Tho queation was whether declarations at the time and under thoso circumstances of tho President's latent, andif what he had done was proper to be, given iu evi dence. It would bo observed that thi\ was an interview between tho President and a member of Congreu, one of tbe grand inquests of the nation. That at that hour the Pro-*ideut suppoaed, from the statement of General Thomas, that Mr. Stanton was ready ta leave the oUioe, do,siriug time to accommodate bla private occasion, atid that the President stated to those geutlerriGn' that he hid reraoved Mf. Stanton, and appointed General Thoraaa dd interim, which was their first intelligence of ita occurs rence. As to the motive and purpose then entertained by tbe Prerident, this conversation shows that the Preaident wig not intending, ac charged bv the raanagera, to place a plate or a tool iu the War Departraent, to the detriraent of the public interest; but, on the contrary, that the appoint raent of General Thomas waa a mere teraporary arrangfr. ment, and that he should nt once send in a good n;)me tot the office to the Senate. .This boro upon the que.'ttion^ purpose, and the fact'had already been shown that anc- mination for the office of Secretary of War waa sent to'the Senate on the following day, before one o'clock, Mr- WILSON, one ot the managers, objected to the evi. dence as being outside of any former ruling |of the Senaft, and as being porfectly within tho rule laid down m Hardy's case,, and to which ho called the attention of tjie Senate. If this offer of proof did not come perfectly within the rule in that case, then he never met with a case Jn all' his experience which came within it. He would, leave the objection on that point to (thb deciaion bf the Senate. Mr. EVARTS argued for the admission of the evidence. He admitted that tho question now proposed was not en- tirely covered by any rnllnK of the Senate, because thert were circumatances attending the first offer of evidenco which were not precisely reproduced here, but SenatbM would observe that before the controveray arose, and at a time, when, in the President's opinion, there waa to be no controversy, he had inade this statenitrat in the courae of thia .intercourse witha member of Congress, thus intra-' duced to him, concerning his pnblic action. The evidenca. had a bearing also upon the question whether the Preifr dent was using or justifying force. It .ilao had a bearirift upon the fact, that the next dav the Preaidimt actualw did send in the name of Mr. Ewing, bf Ohio, for the pl^ of Secretary of War.. . ' Mr. BOTLER said there were one or two new facts ob whtch,thi.i evidence wae nreased, the first and moit niilte- livl being that the conversation had occurred befpre any controversy had arisen between the President cindCon- fress on tho subject of Mr. Stanton, If that were so/ thru here minht be siunc color or shadow of a Claim to admit -this evidence. But had there not been a contrflversy going on ; had not the Preaident known that the Sorisfe had restored Mr. Stanton; had not the Prorident put Mr, Stanton out, and had not the Senate put hira back, , Had not the President been thon besieging GCaenil .Sherman to take tho office cu the Mondav before, vftf thd President's coun'^el were attempting to put this evidenofl before the Senate, because it was the Pri^aident's declar*- tion made before any controversy arose, or was likolyjto arise. Another proposition was that it might bo evidenoa because it waa said to a meraber of Congreas. He was awaro thatmembera of Congress had rights and privileges belonging to their position, but he never wns aware before that one of tho.ie rights was that waa ssid to members waa evidence. There wore a good majir things said to him which be should be very unvrilling ^ have admitted aa evidence. For instance, a written declsp- ration had been sent tn hira to-day, "Corae prepared to raeet your God." (Laughter). "The adversary ia on your track. Hell is your portion." (Continuous laughter). He trusted that that wap not evidence, becaupe it was said to a member of Congress— (laughter)— and yet it was i 'net as pertinent and just as corapetent as the evidehoft iere proposed. Ho did not mean, by any remark before, to suggest that the fact of the declaration heing made tffft gentleman who had been on the stump made' it more (? loPB competent; he had only meant tosavtheevid?nco vm utterly outside the caa*. Me objected to it, foreseeingwhot plight corae quite as .propertv as it. .He foresaw that so™ of the lady friends of tho Preaident— (he hogged pardoni.h# meant some of the women friende)-^ight go to the Wmtf HouPG and he told b.y the President what his purposewsi and then come aud testify to it hore, which would be jhbi as good evidence, in his judgmeu t, as what waa nor offered. Mr. EVARTS tnade a few remarka in support of the <* fering of the teBtiraon.Y, -1'hc Chief JiiPtice said— Senators :— The Chief Justice tt unable to deterraine tho precise extent to which the S*- nate applies ita own decision. Ho has understood thod* oieion to be that evidenco raay bo given for the purpose of showing the conversations of the President at or near tbs timo of the tranfactinn. It is said that this evidence is distinguish able from that juHt introducod. The Cliiof Ju* tico is not able to distingutsh it, and will subrait tho ques tion to the Senate whethfir the testinlony shall be W' Ihitted. . The vote of the Senato waa taken, and resulted— Yoas, ftl' nays, 37, aa follows :— , YRAS.-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Do* little, Hendricks, McCreery, Patterson (Tenn.), and Vic* ers- g. Nats.— Messrs,. Caraeron, Cattell, Gbandler, Conkllngi Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, , 'Ferry, FeasendeOi Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, Hott^Ci Johnson, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Nye, Patterson (\. H.), Pomeroy, Eamsey.-Ross, Shermsa Sprague, Sto war^ Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Van WibM Willoy, WilHains, Wilson, and Yates-«7. So thtviovidence was overruled; Mr, EVARTS then said, this evidence having been e» eluded, wo have no other qunstions to ask tho witness, Mr.P BUTLER said tbey did not wlab to cross-exanuOO him, ' IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 151 Mr. EVAR'tS; then aubmitted th^t the couhpoI had Beached atiomt Whore the Senate might convbniently ad journ, as they would have no other witness- to-day, Mr. Bul LER opposed the adjournment and asked that Oie counsel for the President be called upon to go on with their caae. He had only to apply to thnra the argument made by Mr. Merrick in the case befbre Chief Justico Cartter, that although it wae always an ungracious thing to object to postponement ou account of tho Bickness of the ooimsel. still, as the case involved a matter of so much public interest, it should not bc postponed on that account. On that point he would say, "I thank thcc, Jew, for teach ing me tliat word." Mr. Thomas could not wait on ac count of tho sickness of a couupol, and sC' the' managers now could not wait on account of the rickness ofthe Attorney-fieneral. Why should they? Why shpuld .not thw President be called upon to go on with his case. There had been thirty-three working aays since the President was required to file his answer. , The managers had used six of thosCi and the counael for the President had used a portion or the six, tho other twent.v-ono having been given to delays. The legialation of the country was standine still. TheHouse ofRcpro- sentatives were, hero at tho bar of the Senato. day after day. The appropriations for carrying, . ou tho go"°^emment could not be paased because the trial was in the way. Nothing could be done, and the whole country waa wai't- faiff for its close. Far be it from him-not to deairo to have^his friend the At tor ney^ General here, but public interests were greater than the interests of any individual. T«-o hundred thou- ama men had laiddown their lives in the war, and were fchoy now to stop for the ^sickneaa of ono man. He had in bis hand testimony of what was going on this day, and this promised the South- Mr. (lURTIS (iJocularly)--'*We object to the introduc- mou of that teatimony."' Mr. EVARTS (in the same teraper), challenged its rele- .Tancy, , Mr. BUTLER aaid that its relevancy was this:— That' While they were; waiting for tho, Attorney-General to get well, a numbor of their f611ow-citizens were being mur- ¦flei-cd m the South, and there was not a man in theSenate Chamber who did not.know that the moment justice was -fione to' this great criminal, these murders would ceaae. .(Stamping, of feet in the gallerica, and atterapted mani festations of applause, which were Huppro-iaed), That was the way things stood here, and they were being asked hy .every true man of the country, why they sat here idle In Alabama, ^a register in bankruptcy was to-day driven ffrom hid duties and his home by the Kuk-Klux KLin ^lighter), and tho: evidence of that iaid upon his table. hoiild thoy then delay longer in.this case, knowing their rofl^onfibilifie? to their countryraen, to their consciences and lo thoir God? The true Union men of the country were being raur- cwTca, and on the skirts of Congress their blood waa if they remained horelonger idle. He also reminded the Scnatsrs that aince the 20th day of February laat, ten irill- kons of gold had been sold out of the Treaaury at a sacri fice, and $12,C00 paid in coraraissigns to a man whom, the .Benate had refused to continue iu offico. ITiis gold was' .B«d at frpra ono-and-a-half to two por cent, lower than the market rates. More than that, he had, from the .-ame .flpurcc, the fact that there had heen bought, in the city of Mew York, since this trial had been begun. United States -bonds to the amouut of $27,058,100, which iiad been sold at , »frora ouc-half to fi.ve,-ei^hths and three-quarters above the piarket rates. Some Senator reraarked in an under tone tbat be meant .pclow the market rates. -, Mr. BUTLER repeated that it waa above tho inarket (Pnces. He knew what he said, and he never waa mia- tafcen, (Laughter,), He demanded safety for the financea M tlie people, for the progrcas of legislation,. for the aafety -«thc truo and loyal raen of thb >forth, who had perillBd their hvea for four yeara for the good of the countrv, for wl that was doar .to any patriot, that no further delay rtioi'M hp allowed, but the case should be brought -to a .decUion. If the President of tHe United States wereto go free and , jHiwhippedof justice, then they might as well have that stateoffactfl;butif he was guilty, as the House of Repre- i sentatives had charged, and if he waa an obstruction to the ! peace of tho country, then that obstruction shonld be re moved, and all those murderB nnd corruptions would cease. In the name of Heaven, said he. let us have an end of this. andaay to-da,j'.thatwe;8itat least four hours aday,,and attend to this great business of tho people. He called the wtteution of the Senate to ono of the groat State trials i in England, whore the court sat from nine o'clock in the morning until one o'clock at night, and where the court refused Lord Erskine to moet one hour later in the mom- lug in order that be might have a charice for preparing hia fipiraing up, the .doing of which occupied nine .Iiours hat was the way that cases of great conaeguence were tried in Engfcind. He wae not complaining of the Seuatia hut waa merely contraating tho delay iu this caee, arid kindnesa shown to tho President, the courteajea extended to hira in this greatest of all cases, with casci* tried else where. The managers had been ready at all hazards, and Only asked that now tho counsel fbr the President should ¦be ready, and should go on, instead of having these inter- ' ininablo delays. He reminded tho Senate, also, of the ' threat made by Mr. Brooks, in tho House of Represonta- tivc^ that if the irapeachraent was carried into theSenato, thev ivould require all, forma to be observed, and would kwplt going «u until the cud of Mr, Johnson'a term. Ho appealed to tho Senators not to allow that tiu:6at to bo carried out, as it has been .attempted to bo carried oiit bv these continual delays. Ho never opened bis mails iu the morning without takihft np some Case of murder in tne bouth— of the murder of men whora hohad'known as Standing by the side of the Union, and whom ho now heard of as laying in their cold gravoa. , It was tho feeling for the losa of those who stood by their couritry that per haps stirred his heart very much, no that he was not atile, with tnat coolness with which judicial proceedings ehould he characterized, to address the Senate on thia aubject.' Ho would say nothing of the daily and hourly throats mado aKainst the raanagera, and against every great officop of tho ocnate. He would say nothing of that, a- thev were all aafe. 1 hero waa an old Scotch proverb in their " favor. A threatened dog hvoa the longest." He had not tho sUghtcflt fear on that account, and theso threats of those unsooraly libels, in their forms of governrapnt, would all go away when that raan/ (meaning Mr. Johnson) went' out of the White H"»uBe. ScnatorCONKLING offered the following order;— Ihat each day hereafter, tho Senato, sittmg as a Court ,of Irapeachraent, shall raeet at eleven A. M. Senator SUMNER olfered tho following as a substitute :— Ordered, 1 hat conridering the pubhc interestfl that suffer frora the delay of this trial, and in pursuance of tho order already to proceed with all convenient daspatch, the Se nate will lit from ten o'clock in the forenoon till five o'clock m the afternoon, with such brief recesa as may be ordered. Senator TRUMBULL inquired from the Chief Jnaticd whether these resolutions were in order. The ChiefJustice replied that thov were not, if aUy Senator objected. Senator TRUMBULL-I object Mr. EVARTS roae and said:-Mr. Chief Jujitiee and Se nators, I am not aware how miwh of the address of the ananager ia appropriate to anything which- has come from me. At tho openinji ofthe court thia morning. I stated how wo might bc situated, and I remarked that when thatpoiut of time arrived, I ahould submit the matter to theSenate tor Consideration, I never heard auch an harrangue b^ foro as Ihave juat heard, though I cannot sav that I may not hear it again in this court. All theae dclavs and ovfl coneequcnces seem to preas upon the raanagera' exactly at the precise tin^e when some of their mouths are open, occ*. pyiug yonr attention with their long harangues. If you will look to the reports of the discnpsions of que*. tions of evidence as they appeal: in tho. newapaper.", yon will see that all wo have to fay is erabraeed within a para- graph, while colurans are taken up, with the views ot the learned managers. Hour after hour ia taken up in debates ou the Induction of our evidence, by their prolonging tha .discusaioh, and now twenty minutes hv the watch havfl been consuraed in thia harangue of the able manager about the Kuk-Klnx-Klan, Senator CAMERON inquired if the word "harangued was in order. 9 Senator DOOLITTLE saggosted the inquiry whether the harangue itself was in order. Senator FERRY moved :to adjourn. Senator SLIMNER moved that the adjournment be untU ten A. M. to-morrow. The Chief Justice ruled that Senator Sumner's raotioii was not in order, asthe motion to adjourn must be to ad journ to the usual time. Senator SUMNER called for the yeaa and nays on the raotion to adjourn, but thoy were not ordered and tho court, at 4'45 P. M., adjourned until noon to-morrow^ PROCEEDINGS OF FRIDAY, APRIL 17. The conrt was opened in due form. There was a rather larger attendance of members Of the House th«n nenal this mornina:. On motion, the reading of tbe Journal was dispensed with. The CMef Justice stated the first business in order to be the order offered by Mr. Conness, yesterday, that 9n .each d,ay hereafter the Senate, sitting as a-^ Conrt of Impeachment, shall meet at eleven o'clocic A. M., to which Senator StJMNBE offered the follovr ing amendment : — Ordered, That, considering the pnblic interests, which suffer from the delay of. this 'triaj, and in pursu ance of the order already to proceed with all conrs^ ment despatch', the Senate will sit from ten o'clock in tbe forenoon till six o'cldck in the aftemoon, with such brief recess as may be ordared, , Senator Sumner's amendment was rejected. Teasi 12 ; nays, 30 ; as follows :— YEM.-Mospr». Chandler, Cameron, Cole, Corbett; Hati. T&^^^d.latei^™''''^' ^'^^^ ^'^™'' ^W*' i52 IMPEACHMENT OE' ANDREW JOHNSON. . Natb.— Mesasrs. Anthony, ; Cattell, Cbnuessi Davis, Dixon. Doolittle, Drake, FerTy, Fessenden, Fowler, Fre linghuysen, Grimea, HendrickiB, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan^orrill (Vt), Morton, Patterson (Tenn.), Patter son (N,H.), Robs, Saulsbury, Sherman, 'I'rurabull, Van Winkle, Vickers, WiUey, Williams and Wilson— 30. The order offered 'by Mr, Conness waa adopted by the following vote :-^ Yeas.— Measrs. Cameron, Cattail, Chandler, Cole, Conk ling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, FrcliuBhuy- een, Harlan, Howard. Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Mc.). Mor rill (Vt.), Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy, Rarasey, Sherman, Stewart, Suraner, Thayer, Tipton, WiUiaras, Willey, Wilson and Yatea— 29, . Nays.— Messrs. Anthony, Doolittle, Fowler, Grimes, Heu- dricks, Johnson, Patteraon (Tennessee), Ross, Saulsbury, Trulnbull, Van Winkle and Vickorasi- 12. , ACori'cction, Mr. FERRY oflfered the foUowing order;— Whei'eas, There appears in the proceedings of the Senatr yesterday, as publiahed in the Globe of this morning, cer tain tabular statomeuta incprporated in tho remarks of Mr. Manager Butler, on the question of adjournraent, which tabular statements were neither spoken iu the dis cussion nor olfered, nor received in evidence-; therefore , Ordered, That said tabular stateVnents be omitted frora the proceedings of the trial, aa publiahod in the proceedings of the Senate. Mv. BUTLER— I desire to say thati stated the effect of the tabular statement to the Senate, and I did not read thera at length because it would take too much time. , <' '- Mr. HENDRICKS— I riee to a question of order and propriety. I wish to know whether it woiild be right for any Senator to defend the Secretary, of the, Trea- snry against the attacks^made, or whethcrourmoutbB^^lJTJ^^^^t^/X^TwP^J^^^^ are closed while these attacks ara made; andif it is not proper aud right for a Senator, whether it is the right of a manager to make the attack upou him ? The Chief Justice— An amendineut can be made to the resolution proposed by the Senator frora Connec- i;icut (Mr. Ferry), If the Senate thinks it proper, the Senate can retire for consultation. ^ no Senator inakes thnt motion, the Chair thinks 4t proper that tbe honorable manager should be heard ;li^ explstna- tion. • ¦ Mr. BUTLER-I wish to say that I did not read fthem becanse I thought them voluminous. I had them in my hand, and rhnde them pah of ray argu ment. iTeadthe conclusions and inferences to be drawn from them, and thought it waa due to myself , and tbe Seuate that they- ehould be put exactly as 'thej were, aud I therefore incorporated them in the Globe. To the remarks ^of, Lhe Honorable Seuator -(Mr. Hendricks)! simply say that I made no nttack on the Secretary of the Treatiury. ¦ I s,'*id nothing of (1bim. I did uot kuow that he < was here at aU to be ^dlecnesed, bat I dealt with tbe acts as the acts of the Execntive simply, and -wbenevw: called upon I cau Bhow the reason why I dealt with that act. The Chief Justice stated the question. Mr. ANTHONY understood the Senator from In-, diana (Mr. Hendricke)-to ask -ifj-nnder the rules, he) iBould be permitted to make a defense of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Chief Justice— The rules positively prohibit de- hate., ¦ ¦ -, - -, Mr. ANTHONY— By nilanimoua consent -it might be raade. . . Some Senator objected, aud the order was then 'ftdopted, with but few dissenting voicae. ' Testimony of William W. Armstt'onff. ' ' 'WiUiam W, Arlnstron'g sworn, and examined 'by Mr. CURTIS. Q. Where do you reside? . A. At Cleveland. -Oiiio. . , Senator DRAKB caUed the attention of the Chief Jus- ' ' tide to to impossibility, on hia side of the Chamber of jhearing the witnesa. . , Mr, EVARTS suggested that there waa not so much silence inthe Camber as there might be, 'andthat they -mustitake witnesses with such^natural powers, as they posaesEcd, The Cliief Justice remarked that eonversfttlon was .'going on at the back of the Senators, and that it must be ^topped. The examination of the Witness was resumed. -'¦¦Q. What ia your occupation or buriness? A- I am ope ,j0f .the editors aud proprietors of tjbyj. Cleveland Ptai7i- on to the balcony ofthe Kennard House, and Jherehe waa formally welcomed, to the city of Cleveland m behalf of the municipal authorities aud citizens by tho President of tba City Councils. -, , ¦ Q", Did thcPresidentroBpondto,thataddrcBBofwelcon^d| *Q, What was the situation of that balcony, in reference to the street, in reference to its exposure? state, alio, whether there was not a large crowd of persons preaenn A. There was a large crowd of periiona present, and there was a crowd of persons on the balcony. , ^ , Q, How did it proceed after the President had began his reapoupe? A. For a few raoments there w6re no interrup tions, andl judged from what the President said that he intended- Mr. BUTLER— Excuse me; stop a moment. I object to what the witness suppoaos was the President's intention. - Mr. CURTIS, to the witness— Q. From what ynn heard and saw, waa the Preaident in the act of makiug a co&- ; tinning address to the asserably, or was he interrupted by the crowd? 'Describe how the affair proceeded. A. 'ITio President coiuraenced hia speech by saying he did not in tend to make a speech; I think, to tbe best'of rav recok lection, he had corae there aimply to make the acquaint ance of the people, and bid them good-by ;_ I think that wae the Bubiect of the first paragraph of his speech; he apologized for the non-appearance of General Graut, and then proceffdpd with his speech. Q. How did he proceed; was it a part of ms addresa,.cff waa it in response to'the' calla raadeupon him by the peo? pie ; dtjscribe? A, I did not hear aU tho speech. Q, Did you hear calls made upon him from the crowdi and interruptions? A. I did ; quite a number of thera. Q.' From what you saw and heard the President say, ami from all that occurred, was the President closing' hiar* markf at the tiraC these interruptions began? A. That, I cannot aay.. Q. Can vou say whether these interrnptions and calla ¦ -Q, Were you at Cleveland at' the tirae of. the visit mado to that city hy President Johnson» in the summer of 1866? .A. I was. ' . ' ' . . . ' -' Q. Wore- you prosontat the formal 'reception ofthe Pre sident by any coramittee or body of men? A, I waa. Q. State by whora ho was received, and where? A. The Prcrident and hia party arrived about half pant eight o'clock in the evening, atid were escorted to the Kennard House ; after taking liia auppor the Preaidont waa escorted Some bf thera wefe, Q. Were fhe interruptions kept_up during the continue ance of the address, or waa he allowed to proceed without interruption? A, They were kept np very nearly, to the coiielubion ofthe President's apeech. Q. What waa the character of the crowd, orderly or dia orderly? A. The largo majority ofthe crowd was orderly, as to the rest there was a good deal of disorder. Q. Waa that disorder confined to one or two peraonal ot did it affect enough to give character to the interruptions? A. I havo no means of asoertaining how many were ea> gagedin the interruptions, Q. That is not what I asked you; I asked you whether there were enough to give general character to the sntefr ruptions? Cro5.«-examination by Mr. BUTLER.— Q. Waa Mr. E. W, Belton Prerident 01 the City Councils? A: I believe eo. ,Q, Was not his addre»a on the balcony to the President siraplv in the heariuig of thoae who were on the balciSny? and did not th(i President, after he received that welcome, , then atep forward to address the multitude? A, I bellevS that after Mr. Beltoii'&address several of tbo diatinguifhtid gentlemen who accompanied th6 PJirty were presented, and then, in response to the calls of the people, the Presi dent presented himself. ¦ * QJ Would you say that this was a correct or an incorrftCt i-fport :— "About ten o'clock, the supper being over, the party repaired to the' balconv, where the Prerident wais forraally welcomed' by Mr. F. W. Belton, President of tha City Council, aa follows," &c. ; would that be about thft subfltance? A. Thatwonld be about the substanee, ' Mr, BUTLER, continuiug to read-"Then the President and several snemberg of tue party appeared at the front of tlic balcony, apd were introduced to the people: Then thp vast mulritude which filled the atreeta became most hniati^ roua, and sometiniea bitter, and earcaatic.*' A. I did not hear any interruptions to the President's speech until'afra he had proceeded five .or ten minutes, Q, litut whenever the/did come, would that be fl fair repi'esentation of therar A. To some'extent,' - ' Senator JOHNSON hero remarked that the Senators had not heard a word of the two br three last answers, ' The Cliief Justice— That conversation behind the Bofiit "toi'smadeitvery difficult to hear the witness. ' ''*^^ Mr, BUTLER, continuing to read— "They listenea with attention a part ofthe time, and at other times completely drowned the Preaidenfs voice with vociferationa." , Q. lathatao? A. That is so. ¦ Mr. BUTLER continuing to read after the presentation was,raade. - "Loud calls were made for the President to appear, and hes^jkeaafoUoWa:- " ¦ Iwill read the firat part of that speech :— "FeUow citi zens:— Itisnot forthe .purpose of raaking a speech that I now appearbeforc you. I ain aware of tlie.^eat curiosity which prevails to see strangers who have notoriety imd diatiucdon m the country. I know a lai-ge number of you desire to see General Grant and to hear wilat be has to aay. (A voice— three chccra for Grant).'* ; '" Q. Wasnotthiit the firat interruption? "A. I believe so, J^y*^^ there 4ijy interruption after that until he apoke Of b.tephcn A. DOuglaP, and was that simply the intirnip- tion of appUusC? , A. There were three cheers given, I bo- ,icve. for^ Stephen A. Douglaa; then he wcnton withoiif interruption until this phrase came in;-~'Tcome before ynn asan American jiitizen simply, and notas tho Chief Ma- fistrate clothed in the indgnia aud par. -ipheru alia of state, eing an inhabitant of a State in tho Umon ; I kuow it has beeu said that I waa an alien.'' Q. Then came in laughter; was not that tho next infer* IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 153 ruption? A. I do not recoUect that paragraph in his Bpeech. Q. Do you recollect any other interruption until he carae to the paragraph :— "There was two years ago a ticket be fore you for the Presidency ; I waa placed upon that ticket with a diatinguiahed citizen nownomore." Voioes— It's n pity) t (too bad) ; (unfortunate). A. I did not hear those Words. Q. Do you know whether tbey were or not said? A. I oo notrkuow, Mr. BUTLER— I wiU not trouble you auy further, Testimony of Barton Able. Barton Able, sword; and examined by Mr. OURTIS-* Q. Where do you repidc? A. In St. Lguls, Q. What is your buainess? A. I ara engaged in the mer cantile busineaa, and am Collector of Internal Revenue for tbe First Diatrict of Missouri. Q, Were vou at St. Loins in tbe summer of 1866, at the time Pi'eaident Johnaon visited that city? A. Yea, ^ir. Q. Were you on any committee connected with the Pre- eident's reception? A I waa ob the Committee of Recep tion—the Merchants' Union Committee. Q. Where did the reception take place? A. Citizena of St. Louia met. the President'a partv at Alton, 111,, aorae ¦twenty milea above St. Louia: the. Mayor, I recollect, re- ' ceivedhim at the LindeU Hotel, in St» Louia. Q. You speak of being on a coramittee of sorae mercan- ^Ip association; wbat was tbat association? A. Itwas composed of the raerchants and business men of the city, Q.,Nota political association? A. No, sir. Q. Bid the President make a public address, or an ad dress to the people of St. Louis whilo he was there? A. Hb fnade a speech in the evening, to the citizens, at the South ern Hotet Q. Were you present at tbe hotel before tbe speech ws^s jx^de? A. Yes sir. * Q. As one of the committee of which you "have spoken? A, Yes sir. a. State under what circuraatonces the Rreaident was edupon to speak? A. I was in one of the parlors ofthe botcl With the coraraittee and the President, when aome of tbe citizens came in and aaked him to go out and reapond to tbe calls of the citizens ; he decUned, or rather said that he did hot care to make any speech ; the aarae thing waa repeated two or three times by other citizena who carae in, and he finaUy said that he waa in the hands of his friends, tbe committee, and if they said so he would go out and re spond to the calls, which no did do. Q. What did the coraraittee say? A, A portion of the committee, two or three of them—atated, after some con- i^ultation, ithat they presumed he might aaweUdoit, as there was a large crowd outside in front of the hotel. Q, Did the President say anything hefore ho went out as to whiether he wanted to make a long speech or a short ((poech, or anything to characterize the speech which he proposed to make? A. My understanding was tbat he did not care to make any speech at all. . Mr. CURTIS— You have .already explained that he mani fested reluctance. Now, if he saidSauything as to hia pur pose on goinff out I sbould like 'to have you atafo it? A. I underetood from hia acceptance that hu inteution waa to niake a short speech wheu he went out. , ; Q. Did you or not hear what he said, or were you in a ¦^position BO that yon could bear what be said? A, I heard bis conversation with the coraraittee, Q. I mean after he went out? A. I heard very little of it. Q. Wasitalargecrowdoraamalloue? A. AJarge crowd. O. Were you present near enough on the balcony to be .able to state what the demeanor ofthe crowd waa towards the Preaident? A. I heard from the inrido ; I was not on the balcony of the hotel at aU ; but I heard &om the pai> lor one or two interruptions. Q. You remained iu the parlor all the time? A. Be tween the parlor and the diuing-robm ; 1 waa not on the . balcony, CroBu-examin ation bV Mr. BUTLER— Q. You met the President at Alton, and you, yourself, as one of the eom- mittee. made hira an address, on board tho steamer? 'A. I introduced him to the Committee bn Reception from St. liouia? Q. That was made on board the ateamer? A. Yes, sir. Q- Then Captain Eadea, who waa the chairman of the Citizens, made him an address of welcome? A. Yes, sir. _Q. And after tbat the President made a response? A. jTcb, sir Q. And iu that address he was listened to with particu lar attention, as.becauie his place as President. A. I ob- gerved nothing to the contrary. , Q. Then you went to the LindeU Hotel? A. I did not go to the Liridell Hotel: , Q. Well, the Presidont went? A. I thimk tbe carriage of tbe President went to the Lindell Hotel ¦y Q, And en route to^the LindeU Hotel he waa escorted by iiftarocoaaion, was ho not, from the landing? A, Yes. ' " Q. By a procession of benevolent societies ? A. I do not recollect what aocieties they were; it was a very largo turn-out, and perhaps most ofthe secletiM in the city Were > lepresented. ' 6, Were you at the LindeU Hotel at all ? A. Yea ; I was Hot there when he arrived atthe Lmdoll Hotel. ¦ Q. Were you there when be was received by the Mayor? 'A rJo sir Q. You do not know whether the Mayor made hira an address of welcome f A. Only from what I saw iu the , press. 'Q. kow, dnyou know that tbe President responded? A.^'was not present. Q. What tirae of the day was it when he got to the .Lindoll Hotel? A. It ^-as in the afternoon. Q. When ho left the stearahoat landing? A. I do. not know what time be got to the hotel, for I was not preseut at his arrival, ¦ Qi Cannot you teU nearly tho time? A. It waa probably botweeu one aud fivo o'clock Q. After that did you go with the Prerident from the LindeU Hotel to the Southern Hotel? A. I do not recol- tlect whether I accompanied them from the ono hotel to the other or not. Q, He did go from the one to the other? A. Yoa. Q, There waa to be a banquet for him and hia suite at tbe Southern Hotel that night? A. Yes. Q. At which there waa intended to bo" speaking to him and by him? A. There were Co be toasts and respon'Mj.^, Q, Whattirae was that banquet to corae oif? A, Idouot recoUect the exact bour; I think somewhere about nine o'clock. Q. Atf, the time the President was called upon by the crowd, ^wero. you waiting for the banquet? A. I do not think the banquet waa ready; he was in the parlor with the committee and cjtizena. a. The citizena being introduced to hira? A, Yes. . Did you hear any pBi-tion of his aneech on the bal cony? A. Only auch portions of it as I could catch oc casionally from the inside ; I did not get ou th^ balcony at all. Q. Could you see ou the balcony from where you wore? A. I could aee on the balcony.but I do not know whether I could see precisely where he stood or not, Q, While he waa making fhat speech, aud when he gOt to the aentence-^"! will neither he bullied by my enemies, nor overawed by my frienda," was there anybody ou the balcony trying to, get bim. back? A. I oan hardly answer that question, as I waa not there to see. Q. You might have seen persona trying to get him off? A. I did not. Q. Cau you tell whether it waa so or not? A. I shouM think that if' 1 could not aee it'I could not tell. Mr. BUTLER-I only want to make sure on that point . Witness— I am positive on that point. (Laughter.). Q. Who was on the balcony beaides him? A. I suppose the balcony would hold perhaps two hundred people; there were a great many people there. Q. Give me the name of some one of the twdhundred. if you can name anybody who was there? A. Ithink Mr.. Howe waa thore; ray reeoUection ia tbat thePreaident walked out with Mr. Howe. ; . . Q, Was General Frank Blair thero at any time? A. I do not recollect it if ho was. Q. Did the Presidout afterwards moke a speech at the ybanqnet? A, A short one. X Q. Waa the crowd a noisy and boisterous one? A. 1 ' heard a good deal of noise froin the crowd while I was. moving about inside. > Georire Kbapp^ ExamiDed. George Knapp sworn, and examined by Mr. CURTIS. . Q. Where do yon resiae? A, In St., Louia. Q. What ia your busineaa? A. I aiu one of the pubUsb- ers and proprietors of the St. Louia Republican. Q. Were you in St. Lduia at the time of President John son'^ visit to that city, in the sumiuer of 1866? A. I was. Q. Were you in the room where the President was? A. .Iwas. , Q, Please. state what occurred between the President and ciCizeus, or a coraraittee of citizens, in reference to hia^oing out to make- a speech?. A. The,cro^d on tho " outside had called repeatedly for tbe Pi'eSident, I recol lect that Captain Abel, Captain Taylor aud myself wero toother ; tho crowd continued to call, and some one sug> gested, I think it waa L that the Preaideut ought to go out ; some further conversaKou occurred, I think, between hira and Captain Able, Q. You raean tlie gentleman who has just left the stand? A. Yes, sir; I think! said to the President that he ought to go outandsbow-hiraaelf to the people and aay afew worda, at any rate; ho seemed reluctant to go out; we walked out together on the balcony and he addressed the assembled multitude. Q, What was the character of the crowd? Was there a large number of people there? A. Ido not think I got far enough on the balcony to look upon the magnitude of the crowd; I think I stayed back some distance. Q. About what number of people were ou the balcony itsolf 7 A. I suppose thore was probably from fifteen to twenty ; there may have been twentv-five. Q. Conld you hear from the crowd? A. I could. Q. What was the ctiaraeter of the proceedings ao far as the crowd waa concerned? A. I do not recollect dis tinctly'; my iniprofisions aro that occasional or repeated questions were apparently put to the Pi'erident ; I do not recollect exactly what they wero. / Q, Was tho crowd orderly or otherwise, so far aayou cbuld see? A. Ai times they seemed to be somewhat dis< orderly, but of tbat I am not very, certain. ,,, Cross-exaraination by Mr. BUTLB^B— Q, Did you go out on tha balcony at all? A. Ye8< I stopped out : it ia a wide balconv; perhaps twelve or fifteen feet;, if covers the whole ofthe aidewalk; I stepped outfit was probably oue, two or three feet back of the Preaident j part orthe timche was talking; there were a number of doors and windows lending to the balcony ; you could stand in a window or door and hear every Word he said. Q. Did you listen to this speech so that you could hear every word ho said? A. I listened pretty attentivijv to the , speech while I atayed therci biit whether I stayod there - during aie wbolb of tbe puh I do not uow tecbUect,' 11 154 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. Q. You have told ua there Were fifteen to twenty per sona on the balcony? A. That' is my irapression; 1 am notcertain about tnat, Q. Hoiv many persons would tbe balcony hold? A. I suppose the balcopy would h'Udii himdred people, Q. Tlionit waanof ataU ci-ovvded on tho balconv? A. Idonot recoUect whether it waa or not;Ididnot change my niiiul, nor do I now recolloct that the parlors wore full, audi tliink it vory likely that a large number -^of the peo ple crowded on the balcony to hear the speech, out whether the balconv waa crowded or not Idonot recolleet. Q. Were voii present at the timo, so ' as to reinember dis tinctly when ho said>'*I will neither be bullied bvmy enemies nor overawed by my frienda?" A. Ido not recol lect that phraao.' Q. Did this confusion in the crowd aometimes prevent him going oh, or did it hot? A. I think it likely that it did, but I-amionly speaking from my prerfeat 'impression, as I do notrecpUect. • Q, Did you Hear him say anything about Judaa? A. No, sir ; I dc* not recollect. ¦ ' Q. Did you hear hira sav any thing about attending to John BiiU after a while? A. I have no recollection of the pointe of hia speech, -¦ Q. Sofaraa you know, aud all that you know which -would be of advantage to us to us to hear ia, that you were prcsentwhon. some cittiions asked the Pre^rident to go out and answer the call of the crowd? A. I caunot say That some citizens; those pi'esent iu the parlor asked hira. : -.Qv While the banquet waa waiting? A. Yes, ¦sir. Q. What time waa ' the banquet to take place? A, I :'think at eight o'clock. ' Q, Whattimo'had thiegottobef A. I do not recollect. Q. Waa it not near eight o'clock ¦ at that time ? I think when the President went .out it was*^uear the time for the banquet to take plaoe;I think also— I know, ih fact— that •WhUe the .Prosident was speak' g, aeveral .persona stated it was time for the banquet to cummonce, or somethiS2of 'thatsoi't.^- ¦ :. ¦ '¦ - ' < ^ ¦ , ." Q. Then the banquet had to wait while tho crowd out- eid(j was apofcento? A, I do not know; I think that pro bablj' the hour had pasaed, but it often happens that ban- qiiet Mr. BUTLEK, interrupting— Excuse me, I do not want togo back forty years.' (Laughter;) '; r.Q._,Was it infact a Deraocratic newspaper at thetime ¦the President waa thefe? A. Yea. ^, ^ Q. And the St, Louia Democrat, so-called, was really "the Republican paper? A. Yen. Q. Iij the Deniocratife paper called the RepubUcan, tho ¦'Bpfeech was published on Sunday and Monday. A, Yes, Q. Was it ever republished since? A. No, sir, not to my knowledge. Q. State why vou caused an edition of tho speech tobe ¦cm'rected for Monday morning's publication? A. I met our prinjjipal reporter. Q. Please not sta'e what took place botweeu your re porter andvourselfj I want the facts, not the conversa tion? A.T gave directions to Mr. Ziber, on readmg tho -'Speech, to have it corrected. Q. Were your directions followed, so faras youknow? A, I do not recollect aa to the extent of the corrections ; I never read the speech carefuUy. Q, Did you ever complain ' afterwards to any'manthat ¦•theBpeech;,aa published in the Monday morning's Repub- Itf^n, was not as it oiight to be? A. I cannot draw tho '¦distinction between Monday's and Supday's papers; I have repeatedly spoken of the imperfect raanner in which I conceived tho speech was reported iind publiahed in the JUpublican ou Simd.iy ; whether I spoke of it iu rtiferenco •to Moilday or not, I do pot recoUect. , , ' Q. You' say that you directed a reviaed publication for Monday, and that it was pubUehed, now did you ever ¦complain to any body within the no-xt three jhontua after that reviiiett p6blication Was made, that that Publication was not a true, one? A. It is pofisibje that 1. 'may havo complained on Mouday morning if tho corrections were notmade, but Idonot recollect, ' ., iQ. And it is po-rible you did not? A. That, I soy, I can- "not recollect, Q, Nor will yoH say that In auy important particular thi speech, as published in your paper, differed from the speech asj)utm e ride nco here? A. I cannot poiiit ou^ a flolitary difference, because I have not road the speech as put in evidence here, nor havC I read tho siJOCch smce tlw inornine After it was doUvered, Mr,BUTLER-^IwUlnot trouble 3^u any fiirthor. A Reporter ou the SCa.nd. , Henry F. Zlbor, sworn? and cxaujlned.-rBcfore the ex- wuinatipn commenced, thj; witnesa intimated to Mr, Cur- 'tisthat ho was sonniwhat deaf. irtD^^'"^l:'*^^'^^ — Whcl-edid you reside In the suraraer of 18fi6v "^h'-'tt the Piesident vtoitod St. Louis? A. Iu St. Louiflv Missouri. t ' Q. What waa tlien your buainosa? A. Iwas then engaged as a "bort-hand writer for the Missouri Republican, a paplnr published in St. Louis. , , . _l ^r ^^ Q. Had you anything to do with making a report of the speech which the President delivered from the balcony of the Southem Hotel? -A, I made a short-hand report qf tl» speech,' and waa anthorized to employ what aeswtnBco I needed; I employed Mr. Walbridge to assist me; Mr. WsJ. bridge wrote out the speeahfor the Sunday morning 72*. vjuhlioan; I went over the apec-ch the aarae afternoon, and made several alterations for the >Ionday morning RepUQ^ cOfli; Lmade the corrections frora my own notes. ; •¦> - Q Did you make any correctiona except those which ym found werejrequired by your own notes?. A., Thore wai^ three or four corrections, which Idid not then make, but I marked them on tho proof-sheet in the counting room. 6, With those exceptions, did you make any correcfioni except what were CaUod for by your own notes?' A*. T^oS* were called fpr by my own notcsi but they were not lu foAt made, ' ,. , - ^ ' . - Q. Were tbe otber corrections called for by your notesf A, Ob. ves, aU of them ^ ,.- -i. - a' ', Q. Have you compared the report which you mado and which waa published in the Repujylican, of Mondav,,wwli the report puhliriied in the St. Louis Dempc?-Cf«? A.J more particulariy compared the report piiblished,iu,tM Monday Democrat with tho Sunday Republican. . Q, You compared those two?, A. Yea, there >re abjaJt sixty changes. , ¦ , , , . . w ^ Q. Difierences? A. Yes, sir. Deacrible the character of Ithose difrereuces. Mr. BUTLER— I object to hia describiiig the charactj?;; fet hira state the differ6ncGB. , ' ,_ ,,, Mr. CURTIS.— Do you want him to repeat the siiKy dif- fere noes? Mr. BUTLER^Certainly, if he can. Mr, CURTIS, to witneas— Have you a meraorandum (rf these differences? A. I have. ' Read them, if you please. Mr. BUTI/ER-Before he reads I should like tok^o* when it was made. , ., . Mr. CURTIS, to witnesa— When did you make tbis oqm- parison? A. Last Saturday, the llth of April. , . _ . Q, When did you make the memorandum? A. lu^ana the raemorandura on tho Sunday foUowing. Mr. BUTLER-Last Sunday? A. Yes, sir. Mr. CURTIS— Q. For whom did yoiUmake the menift- raudura? A. I was bronght here by the raanagers, , and discharged after being here twenty-four davs. X hadju^ returned to St, Louia, when I got a telegraphic de&pa^p that I Was summoned again to appear before the Senatf. I then went to the i?ej)if.6(?ca7i office and took tfaeboiuia files ot the Republican 3.vd the bound files of the Demh erat, and, in company with Mr. Joaeph Monaghan, oue df the assistant editor.^!, made a comparison of the two !»- pers, and nbted, the differrapea, and compared the diffM- eneea tvvico afterwarda, ito see that the.v were corrcew fhat was Saturday last; I started for .Washington Sunday afternoon, at three.o'clock. / " , ¦ ' Q.' This pa'ber which contains those differences, w^a was it Tuade? Ai Last Saturday, Q. Waa it mado at the aame time when you raade thlj 'Comparison, or at different itimes? A. It was made at tUQ same tjUiie. ^ ; - . ; Mr, CQRTIS— Now, if tbe honorable managors wlsl^es to have jdl these diiferences, you can road tbem. , Mr. BUTLER— Stay a moment; any on which you Xfi^ we wish to baVo read. r Mr, CURTIS-rW'e rely upoh aU of "them, more or leas. ' Mr, BUTLER— Then aU of tbem. more or less, must ba read. Mr. CURTIS— We-should prefer, iu order to save tinM(, to give specimens of the dinferencesi but if you desire to have aU road you can have thera read. - ' Mr,.BUTLElt— There ig a queation back of this: thatifv we have not the standard of comparison. Thie witnesJ ' goe* to the Rxipublica7i office and there tnkca a copy of tlifl paper, but we cfj.nuot tell whether it wa^ the true paper or notfl or what edition it waa: and he compares it with a ccipy of the Dempqhat, frn,d having hiade fhat comparison bc now pvoposo'e to,' put in the reshlt of it^ I do nof eeg how that can" be evidence. He maj- statb anything whim he has auy recollection of, but to make the memQi'aUdum evidence, and to read the raeradraudura. la soraetbingi novor heard' of, Letrae restate it. This witnesa goes Jp the Republican office to get the RepublicaTU' 'What/* •^fubhcanr—hovr genuine— what edition it Was, except thfli it was in a bound volume, is not identified. He takeS tbfl Democrat— of whateditioii we donotknow— atfdhocori^ pilreathe twp. Ho then comes bere and attemlnti^to put in the results of .a compariaon Made in which MbnOghaii held bue end of the matter and he held tht (ip)ieT. ^^ that bo evidence? ". i Mr. CURTIS— i want to ask the witness a question, and thon I wiU make an observation. To the witness— publican, SepteiUbcr 9. ^ Q. Have you looked at the proceedings in. thia case J* sec whether that report haB^bel'n put in evidence? A, Th* Sundiiy ^ej?uWtca« mentions ^r, Walbridge h teatiinonti in which ho statea that ho rnado oiio or two simple coraw- tions' for the Monday moraing i0e«M)crcrf, ' ,.> Q. Now, I wjsb to inquire. whether the report wliich yo|J read iu the files Of tbo Re-publicWii, and which you com- paired with the report in tbe J)eimicra^ waa the repon which Mr. Waldrid0s made'. A.'UndoabtedlVlt was. IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSOK". 155 , Mr. CrRTIS-^It is suggested by the learned manager, Mr. Chiet Justice- Mr. BlJTLBR,.interruptiug-I wiU save you aU trojible; put it lu as much as you choose ; I don't care if ybti leave it unread, . ' ' . " Mr. CURTIS— Wo rimply wanttb have it put in' the case to Have time, and to have it printed, Mr, BUTLER— Therecannot.be anything printed that is not read. • Mr. CURTIS— We understand; you wish to dispense With fhe reading. .TheChief Justice— Let it .be read if tbe manager de sires it . ' ' ' Mr, BUTLER-I do not doftu-e'it. Mr, EVAUTS— Isitto goia evidence, Mr. CMef JnStic^ or is it not? The Chief Justice— Certainly, it is. '' ¦ Mr,. BUTLER— It mav go in for all I care, air. ' Cross-examined by Mr, BUTLER— Q, How long have you been troubled witb your unfortunate a'fblctiou? A. To what do yon refer? Q. I understand vou are a little deaf; is that so? A. I bave been sick a great part' of 'this year, and was com pelled to come here a month ago, almost before I was able to corae, and I hav« not got well yot, Q. Did you hear ray qnestion— How long have you been deaf, if you are deaf at aU? A. Ihavebeen deaf forthe last two years. i Q. About what time did it commence? A. I do not re collect. ' Q. You know when you became deaf, do yon not? A. I know I was not deaf when you made your St. Louib speech in 1866. ... Q. That is a very good date to refer to, but suppose you , try at.by the alraanao? A. That was in October, 1866. Q. How soon did you become deaf after that?' A. Pro bably about a raonth, (Laughter.) Q. You are quite sure .you were not deaf at that time? A. I ara qiiite certain,' because I kuow I heard aome Te- marks wnich the crowd raade, and which you did not bear. (Laughter.) ' ' Q. I have no doubt you heard much better thau I did, bnt suppose we confine ourselvea to thia matter; you say that about a month after that you became deaf? A. Par tially : I recpvered from that again and took aick again. Q. Havo you your notea of the President's speech? A. No, sir. . . ' '. - Q. When did you see them last? A. The last recollec tion I have of thera waa when Mi'. Walbrldge was sum- inoned to give hia testimony before the Reconatruction Committee ou the New Orleana riots, Q. Didyou or he thon go over that apeech together?" A. We went over ouly a part ofit, Q. The part that referred to New Orleans? A, Yes. Q. Was there any material difference hetween you and him when you had your notes there together, in that part of the speech? tfao, stato-what? A. There was. Q. Wha&'^as it? A. He asked me: to compare notes wibh hinit .^ Mr. BUTLER— Excuse me; Iam not asking what be aaid. I am asking what diiference there was between ^ that report and his report on- that compariaon, and'wbat ' the raaterial difference was? Mr. EVAKTS— I submit. Mr. Chief Justice, that as the manager haa aaked a precise queation what the ditferen'eo was in that compariaon, the witness ahould be permitted to Btate what it was and how it arose, ., Mr, BUTLER— 1 havo not aaked any difference that arose between the witness and Mr, Walbridge. Far be it from me to go into that, I have aaked wli^ difference there was between the reports' of the speeoh. Mr. CURTIS— As it appeared from that comparison? Mr. BUTLER^As found at that time. Witness— I was going ou to abs wer, andif the gentleman wUl have patience a few moments I wfll answer. . The Chief Justice— The witneas will confine himself en tirely to what is asked and make no reraarks; Witnesa— We proceeded to corapare the speech relating totbe New Orleana riota; Mr. Walbridge read over hia notea, and I looked over mine ; when he came to this pas sage, "When you read the speecheB that were made or f aeked up the facts you will find the speeches were raade," caUed Mr. Walbridge's attention to thoae worda qualify ing the' sentoiice, "If the facta are aa stated;" he replied to . me, ."Oh. you aremlatakeri; I knowl am right,"- and he went on i atbe was suraraoned to swear to tua notea and not to mine, I did not argue the question further, but let him go on. Y. wTiat' other difference vvere there? A. In the New Orleans matter?. Mr. BUTLER— Yea. Wituess-Tho President referred to the Convention which had beeu called iu New Orleans, "and which was extinct by reason of ite power having ex pired; the words, "by reason of its power having ex pired," werai ia my report and were not iu Mr. WaU bridge's. Q.Was there any other difference? A.Naother;Mr.' Wal bridge proceeded w^ith his report of tho matter \i'ith refers ence totbe New Orleans riots; the latter part of there- port waa not compared at ail nor waS the first part. 6. Have you the report as it appeared in the JtepuUican of Monday Defore you? A. I have. . Q, Let me read a few aentences, and^tell me how many errors there are in thiathat waa put in evidence here?— *'Fellow citizens, pf St, Louia:— In , being introduced to vou, to-night, it is not for the purpoae of making a speech. It is true I am proud tu meet HO many of my fellow citi zens here ou this occasion, and trader the favorable circum-'' fltancesthatldo.'* Cry— '* How aboBt,BritiBh subjects I" "We will attend to John Bul after a while, so far as t^iat ia concei'ned. (LaughUir aud cheers.) I have just atated that I was not here for thepUrpoae of hiaklng a'apeech." Withesa, 'interrupting— The Pi-eaident said, "I am iiot bere." ¦ ¦, , Mr: BUTLER-Q, Thon the difference Is between tjie word "waa" and the Word "ara?" Db you know that the President^ liaed the word "am,'" instead of "wai^" A. Of courpfeldo. Mr, BUTLPIR, continuing to read— "But after being In- ti'oduccd. simply to tender ray cordial thanks for th'e ivcl- come you have given me in your midec"— (a voice, "T^n thouaand wclcomeaP'- hurrahs and cheers)— Thank you, sir, I wish.it waa in my power to -addreas you under fa vorable circunistaneea upon some of the queftions that antatc and distract the public mind at this time." Witness, interrupting— The word was "which agitate, &c.'' Mr. BUTLEE, continuing to read— "Questions that have groWnoutof afiCry ordfeal We have just passed through, and which . I think as important as those we have just passed by. The tirae haa come when it seems to rao tljat all ought to b,e prepared for peace. The Kcbotlion being auppressed. and the shedding of blood being stopped, the Bswjrifice of Ufe being suependedaud/atayed, it seoma tl)at the tirae haa arrived when we should have peace, when the bleeding arteries should* be tied iip, - (A voice— 'New Orleans.' 'Go on,')" Q. So far aliis right except the ttvo corrections yon have made?.. A, Yea, sir ; I wish to make a eorrection at the New Orleans part. , Mr. BUTLER— (J. Why should you wish anything about it? " Witnesa— You were proeeeding to make a correction, and whenyou* carae to the New Orleans part you stopped, Mr, BUTLER— I wiU take this portion of the speeclij— "Judaa, Judas I'?cariof, Judas, '^here waa a Judaa onco," .Witnesa. interrupting— There is ono .Judas too mu(ch there, (Laughter). Mr, BUTLER— Q. You arO sure that be did not apeaK Judaa four tiinea? A. Yea, sir. < Q, How many tiuies did he speak Judas? A, Three times,' Witnesa to Mr. Butler— In the report that is iu evi dence, those words j£rO italicized, aro they not, and stretched out? Mr, BUTLER.r'Two of the Judasea are speUed with the last syllable, a-a-s ; do you mean to say that the.Preai- ¦ dent spoko' that part w^th: emphaaia ? A, I mean to say that he did not apeak thera in that way. Mr. BUTLER (continuing to read)— "There was a Judas once : one of the twelve Apoatles ; ohT yes, and these twelve Apostles had a Christ. (A voice— Aud a JloSes too. Great laughter)' The twelve Apcstles had a Chriat, ar^d he coiild not havo had a Judas unleas he had had twelve Apoatles." So far it is right ? A. Yes ; not stretched out, Mr. BUTLER- Yes, 'sir, etretch'ed out, la there any other question you would like to aak. mO ?' (Laughter,) N 0 w, air, ivill'yon uttehd tb your business, aud say what differences tlieto are? Continuing to read— "The twelTe Apoatles had a Christ, and he could not.have had a Judas unless he had twelve Auostlea. If I have played the Judaa who has been. my Christ that I have plaved the Judaa with? Was it Thad. Stevens? was it Wendell Phillips? Wa^ it Charlea Sum ner? (Hisses and clieera.) Are theee the meu thatset up and compare themselves with the Savior of meul"? Witness— The word "that"" should be "^yho." Mr, BUTLRR— Q. Is that a fair specjraen of the sixty corrections you have made? A. There are,four iu the next three lines, Mr, BUTLER-Q. Answer tho question; is that a fair" specimen of the sixty corrections? Mr. BVARTS— Mr. Chief Juatice;— I suppoad the correc tions, the whole of which are put iu evidence, wUl shuw all this, Mr. BUTLER— I ara croaS-examihiug the witneaa, and I prefer that the witness shall not be in=tructed. Mr. EVARTS— It is not instructing' the witnesa. We thought it would save tinie by putting iu the memoran dum; whether this ia a fair spocimeu or not as compared with the whole paper, will appear from a compariaon by the coiirt: . Mr. BUTLER— I ara testing the witness* credibility, and I do uot care to have him instructed. The Chief Jufltice—Ifthe queation is objected to tbe honorable manager wiU ploaae put it in writing. Mr. EVARTS— It is not a queation of credibility.; it ii; a matier of judgraent between the two papers, whether oue correction is a fair aneciraen of all? Mr. BUTLER to the witneSa— I aak whether the correc tions you have raade in answer to my questions are of the sarae average character as the other sixty correctiona? Mr. EVARTS.— Wc object to tho question. It requires a re-exaraination of the whole subject. Mr. BUTLER— won. I wUl pass from that rather than take up the time. Mr. Witneas, you told ua tliat in the next three lines there wertii corTeclioua. I will read the next four linea. "In the days when there .ware twelve Anbatlea, and when there Tvaro a Christ, whUo thore ware Judasea there ware unhelievera too. Yas, while there were Judoses therO were unbelievers— {Voices, 'hear.' "Throe groans for Fletcher.' Yes. oh yea, uubeUevera in Christ." ¦ ,,, „ . ,,,,,. .. 1 Witness— The word "were" is spelled four times "ware," and the first time it shonld be "wasj." . Mr. BUTLER— Q._Then your correctiona, are all on questions of pronunciation and grammar? A. '1'hc Prc- tidcnt did not uao thoso words, > ' Q. You aay ' the President did not pronounce the word 155 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOH^fSON. •-*were" 'broadly, as is sometimes the 'Southern fashion? A. I sav he did not use the word aa used in that paper. Q. Did he not speak broadly the word "were" when he used it? A. Not bo that it could¬not be distinguished from ¦*ware." Q, Then-itiaaciuestio^of how you spell and pronounce tbat you coirected? A Tbe tone of voice could not be reprepentea in print. Q, And you think that' "were" better represents his ton&of voice? A. Yes, sir, Q, Although it cannot be represented in print? A. Yes. Q, Now, sir, with the exception of corrections in pro nunciation aud in grammar, is there any correction of the report as printed in the Democrat on Monday corapared with the report of the RepubUcanf A. Of what day? Mr. BUTLER— The Republican of Sunday or Monday? I repeat, with the exception of correctiona iu grammar and punctuation, is there .iny otJier correction in substance be tween the two reports as printed that morning .between tbe Mouday Republican and the Mouday Democratf A. Yea, air, Q. What are they? A. One ia :— "Let the govemment be restored; Ihave labored for it; I am for ituow," T^he words, "I ara for it now," are .omitted in the Democrat, and there ia a change iu the punctuation in the commence ment of the next sentence. Q. What elae ia there? A. Speaking of the neutrality law, he Bays, "I am sworn to aupport the Constitution, and to execute the laws.'* Soraecried oiit, "Why did you not do it?" He auswered, "The law was executed; the law was executed," These worda, '.'Why did you not do it?" and "The law was executed" are omitted in the J?e- Tnocrat. . . Q. What else, iu substance,, is oraitted? A. I do not know that I cau point out any oth'er without the memor randura. Q, Uao the raeraorandura, and poiut out auy difference in subatance- not gramraar, not punctuation, not pronun ciation. The witneaa, after examining the raemoranduin. Btatf'd that in one aentence the word "eacrifice" was used in the i)emocra('8 report, the proper word being "battled." Mr. BUTLEE to the witness-WeU, I wiUnot trouble you further. WitrfesH— I will point out more. Mr. BUTLER-That is all, sir. Novel Evidence. Mr. CURTIS— We offer in evidence this document. It is the coraraiarion issued by Preaident Adamp to General Washington, constituting him Lieutenant-General ofthe Army of the United States, The purpose is to ahow the forra in which commiaaioUs Were issued at that day tp military officers. It ia the moat conspicuous instance in our history as regards the practice, Mr, BUTLER-r-There were two appointments to Gene ral Washington, Was this the one accepted by him, or ¦the one reiecled? Mr. EVARTS— We understand it ifl tbe one actually issued to him. Mr. BUTLER— And accepted? Mr. EVARTS— We underatand so'. Mr, BUTLER— We have no objections. The paper was read. Mr. CURTIS— We iiOxt offer a docuraent from the De partment of the Interior, showing removals of Superin- tendcntf, of Indian Affaira, ludian Agenta, land omcors, receivere of public raoneys, survey or-gener ala, and certain misqellaueouB officere. It shows the date of the removal, and of the narae of the officer aud tbe officea hold ; and it also contains memoranda, showing whether removed dur ing the recesg, or during the seaaion of tbe Senate. Mr. BUTLER— Mr, President, I have one objection to thi s speciea of evidenco without anybody being here to testify to it ; and that is this:— I have learned that in tho case of the Treagury Department, which I allowed to go in without objection, there are other ca-^es not reported where the power was refused to be exercised, and I do not- know whether it ia so in the Interior Department or not ; but roost of thoso examined by ua are simply under the law, fixing their tenure during the pleasure of the Presi dent for the tirae being, and aorae of them are inferior offi cers originally made by the War Department, bat if tho counael for the President thinks'^ they have aUy bearing, we have no objection. Mr. CURTIS said he had not bad an opportunity to ex amine them minutely, but be underetood a large nuraber of thera held ofhce under a fixed teuure. It mjght be a matterof argument hereafter. , '. ^ Mr. BUTLER— What class of ofucers do you apeak of? Mr. CURTIS— Receiver of Public Moneys is one of the classes. SenatorJOHNSON— Whatis the first date of removal? Mr. CUETIS— I thiuk they extend through the whole period of tho existence of that department. 1 do not mean tho date w'hen the departraent Was established, but I thiuk they run throiiglbi the whole of it. Evidence by F. W. Seward. Frederick W. Seward sworn on behalf of respondent, OKaminod by Mr. Curtis. Mr. CURTIS— Mr. Seward, wiU you pleaee to atate the offico vou hold under the government? A. Assistant Secre tary of State. Q, How longhave you held that office? A. Since March, Q. In whose charge in that dopartraent ia the subject of consular and vice conaular appointments? A. Under my ehfti'ge, A, Please to state tbe practice of making appointment of vice consuls in tbe cMe of death, resignation, incapacity or absence of consuls, uauaUy consuls? Mr. BUTLER— Is not that regulated by law? Sfr. CURTIS'Tbat is a matter of wgumeut; we tibiqk itia, . Mr. BUTLBR-So do we. , ., ,, , , Mr. CUETIS— I want to show «ie practice uncier tke law. just as we have done in otber cases. I have the doca ment bere, but it requires some explanation tom aske it in- telUgibleito the witneaa. When a vacancy has not Ttefen foreseen, the consul nominates a vice consul, whb enters upon the diaoharge of his duties af once, at the time the nomination iff aent totbe Department of State_, Thedfe. partraent approvea or disapproves df the nommation, in case the vacaney,baB not- besn foreseen. If the consul is dead, absent, sick, or unable to discharge the duties, then the miuister of tbe country may maKO _a nomina. tion to the Department of State,, or if no minister, ths naval coraraander not unfrequently makes a nommatToa and sends It to the Department of State, and thevi|a consul 80 designated acts until the "department approve or disapprove. In other cases the departraent has oftgn designated a vice consul withont any previous nomhia- tion from eitber consul, miniater, or naval epmraander, aud he enters upon the discharge of his duties in the same manner. , ', ,., . „ I Q. How ia he authorized or comraissioned? A. He re ceives the certificate of his appointment, signed by the .Secretaryof State. - ^ _^ . ^ i. ' « * -d Q, Running for a definite penod, or how? A. Running subiect to the reBtriotions providedby law. Q. Ia thia appointraent of vice consul made temporariw to fill a vacancy,- or how otherwise? A. It is mado to fill the office during the period which ^elap8ea between the time it takea for tho information to reach tbe department and a successor to be appointed^ ^. . ^ «' '. Q. That ia. for a succeeding consul tobe appomtearfA, Yes: sometimea weeks or months may .elapse before a uewlv-appointed auccesaor cau reach thw place, ' J- Q. It is then in its character an ad interim apDointnrant to fill the vacancy? A. Yes, sir, , Mr. BUTLER— Is there anything said inthe commis sions about thoir being act Mterim, or iu the letter ot ap pointment? , ,, Witness— The letter of appointments say, *'Subjflot to ¦ tbe conditions made by law.'' . , Q. Ia that the only limitation there is? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are not the appointments made under the fifteentb section of the act of August 11. 1856? A. August 18, ian'titf Mr. BUTLER— I think you are right, eir; August' ;18, Witness— I think the act of 1856 does not create the bffice or give the power of appointment, but \t redog- ni^es the office as already in existence, and the powfff as already iu tho President. Mr. BUTLER— We wiU see that in a moment, sir. Mr. BUTLER read from 11 Statutes at Large, sectioDfl 14 aud 15. He continued;— ^' Q- Now, sir. have they ever, in the State Department undertaken to make a vice consul agaiuat the provisiona of this act? A. I ara not aware that they ever have, Q? Nor ever attempted to do it? A. No, sir ; not that, I am aware of, , Mr. CURTIS— I pow offer fi*om the Department of State, thia document, which contains a list of the cousulaB bm- cers appointed during the aession of the Senate, when va cancies existed at the tirae such appointments Were inftde. The earliest instance was in 1803, and they come down to about 18B2, if I remember right. Mr. BOUTWELL— I wish to caU the counsel for the re spondent to the fact that it doea not appear, from these papers that these vacaucies happened during the recesa. of the Senato. It merely states that they were filled during the session ofthe Senate. Mr. CURTIS— It does not appear when the vacanciea happened. The purpose is to show that theee temporary appointments were made to fiU vacancies during the ses sion of tbe Senate. * » • • i give notice that we' pro pose to consider these as cases happening during the recess of the Senate. Mr. EVARTS-During the session. Mr. BOUTWELL- We don't know anything about that, r Mr. BVARTS— Tho certificate is to tbat effect, filed during the session of the Senate. , Ml'. BOUTWELL'- We do not object to tbo paper. I only give notice bow we propose to consider it. Testimony of Gideon Welles. Gidoon Welles, sworn on behalf of the respondent. Examined by Mr. EVARTS. Q. Mr. Welles, you are now Secretary of the Navy? A. Y'cSk air Q. At what time, and from whom did you receive that appointment? A, I was appointed iu Mwch, 186J. by Preaident Lincoln, and have hkcld the office continuall7 until now from that date. ' i . Q. Do you remember on the 21st of February last yons attention being drawn to some movements of troops or military officers? A, Ou the evening of the Slst of Febru ary my attention was caUedto some movements tbat were made then. ., ' Q. How wasAbat brought to your attention? A. My son brought them to ray attention. He had been attending a party, when an order came requiring aU offlcUrs under, the command of General Eraory to report forthwith to. neaa- qu arters. Q, Didyou, in conseqnence of that beck to have an in terview witb tbe President of tbo United States? A 1 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 15Y requested my aon to go over that evening or the foUowing "day. Mr. BUTLER— Stop a moment ¦) Mr. EVARTS— You atterapted to find a messenger at that tirae? A. I did. On Saturday, the 22d, I went myself about noon to aee the President on this subject ; I told him what I had heard, and aaked him what he meant.' Mr" BUTLER— We object to that converaation, and bC: fore we go-to the objection, I would ask the witness to fix the' time a little raore carefully. Witness— About 12 o'clock ou the 22d of Februarv.^ Q. How close to 13; before or after? A. 1 shoii^ld tblnlr it was a little hef ore 12 ; IwiU stateacircumstahcC or twbj the Attorney-General wae there when I went iu, and whilo I was there the noraination of Mr. Ewing was made aa Secretary of War, and was deliVerecTto the Private Se cretary to be carried to the Capitol. , t Mr. BUTLER— Stop a moraent. Mr. EVARTS— It ia not the-tirae for cross-examination now. Mr, BUTLEE— It is in order to ascertain whether it is adJ^ssible,. ¦ ' ^~. Wc. EVA liTSrr-Xt is quite immaterial Mr, BUTLEH to witness— You think it was very near twelye? A, About twelve o'clock. Q, Could it have been as early as half-past eleven? A. No, rir, I dou't think it waa. 0. Between that time and half-past twelve sometime? A. Yes. rir. Mr.' EVARTS, —Whafpaflaed between you and the Presi dent after you had made that statement to him With re ference to tnat communication? Mr. BUTLER^aked to have the question put in writing, wnich waa done, Mr. EVARTS.— I will state that this evidence ia offered in reference to the article that relatea to the conversation between the President and Geheral Eraory. Mr. BUTLEE— That ia precisely as we understand it; but we also understand the fact to no that Gen. Emory was Bent for before Mr. Welles appeared on" the scene. I ara iuatructed hy my associates to say that we are endeavor ing to get the raatter settled that General Emory received a pote to come to the Preaideut at ten o'clock in the moan ing. That he ffot there before the Secretai'yof the Navy we cannot at this moment ascertain, but it doea not appear' that this converaation waa before Emory was aent for. Mr. EVARTS— That is a niatter ,of proof which isto he conaidered when it iti all in, as tOv which is right on our side, and which on theirs. |iilr. BUTLER— The proof of what wa? aaid in the con versation is not to be considei^ed ae ¦ proof of which was right on the facta, for I suppose mv learned opponent wduld not claira that if this wae after Emory came there they could putin the testiraony. Trie Chief Justice considered the evideude competent, and no Senator raising a question it waa admitted. The question wa,a again read. ' " Witness— I cannot repeat the words ; I should think the worda of the President were, "I don't'know what Erbory mfeans,'* or "I don't know what Emory is about;" I re marked that I thought he ought to know that when he waa sending for his officers at auch a time it ' must be for aome reaaon; he heaitated aoinewhat; we h&,d a Uttle con versation ; I think ho said he would send f9r hira ; either that, or that he would p^ad and inquire into it ; 1 think he said he would setB. for hira. Mr. EVAETS-5Q. I wiU call yoitr attention to the 2lBt of Fehniary, at the time of the cloae of the Cabinet meet^ ing that day, at what hour was the Cabiuet meeting held on that day, Friday? A. At twelve o'clock, the regular hour. Q, That is the usual hour, and that is the usual day of the Cabiuet meeting? A, Yes, sir, Q. Did you at that time liave any ipterview with the President of the Uuited Statea at which the subject of Mr. Stanton's removal was inentioned? Answer, yeii or no? A. I did . ' ' Q. At about what hour of the day was that? A. About two o'clock. Q. Hadyouiipto that tirae'beardof thefl-embvalofMr, Stanton? A. I had not; I was'tOTd before I left. Q. And after the Cabinet meeting was cloaed thia inter-' view took place, at which 'thiB subject was meutibued? A, The Prerident remarked^ Q. No matter; state whether it waa? A. Itwas. Q. What passed between you and the President at tbat time? Mr. BUTLER objected. » On motion, the Senate here took a receas of fifteen mi nutes, after which the crosB-^examinatibn of Secretary Wellea was continued by Mr. EVARTS. Q. Did the President raake any coraraunication to you on this occasion concerning the reraoval of Mr. Stantou— yes or no? A, Yes ; he did. v Q. Was thia before thia Cabinet meeting had broken ut, or at what step of your meeting was it? A, We had got throngh with our departmoutal business, and were about separating, when the President rem arlced— Mr. EVARTS, interrupting— Q. Who were prepont? A Ibfilieve all were preaent, unless it was Mr.' Stanton. Mr. EVARTS— Now, I offer to prove that on thia occa sion the President communicated to Mr, WeUes -ahd the other members ofthe Cabinet, before the meeting broke up, that be bad reraoved Mr. Stanton and appointed General Thoraas Secretary of War ad interim, and that upou the inquiry by Mi\ Welles whether General Tfiomas waa in posaeaaion of the office, the President replied that he was; and, upon further question of Mr. Welles whether Mr. Stauton acquiesced^ the President replied that he did -^ all that he required was time to reraove his papers. Mr, BUTLER-I want to caU- the attention of the coun sel to this queation :— "I understand Mr. Welles that it was after the Cabinet meeting broke Up." Mr, EVARTS— No; I have put that accordiilg to the fact, that it Was when thoy had got through with what he calls their department busineas, and before the act of breaking UP( that the President made that corarauui-' cation. Mr. BUTLER objected that it conld not he evidence. Ho aaid It was now raade certain that this act was done with- 'out'any ^consultation of his Cabinet by the President; e;ither verbally or otherwise. The Presidient had no right to consult his Cabinet except by the constitutional me thod. Jefferaon had taken the same view on this question Which he (Mr, Butler) had heretofore taken before the Se nate. The. Conatitution, for good purpofCfi, required the President when he wished the advice of his Cabinet to ask it iu writing, ao that it could appear for all time what that ad^'ice was. That was hecause there had been attempts made ou the various triala of impeachmeut of raembera ofthe Cabinet, to put in the fact or Ehe advice, by order of the Kinq. to the Cabinet, or the advice ofthe varioua merabora of the Cabiuet to each other. That waa exploded in the Earl of Danbnry's case. Thatqueatinn had been settled then, so that it might not arise thereafter. He waa glad to learn that the Prerident waa solely responsible, and acted upon his sole renpouribility, without the advice of his Cabinet, Could the Presidout then, by his narration of what ho had .done, and what he had intended to do, defend himself before this tribunal for the conaec|Uonces of his acts? f It was exactly the same question almost unanimonriy ' decided yesterday in the caSe of Mr, Perrine and Mr. Selye, where a conversation a few rainutes earlier or later, wasruledout. This was not an attempt to take the ad vice of Mr. Welles, but to inform him and the rest of the Cabinet of what had,heen done, and that after the Cabinet meeting, while they were talking together as any other citizens might do, it would he aa if a question should be attempted to be. put into thia case after the court ad journed. Mr, EVAETS denied that the witneaa had said anything to show that the act of removal or appointraent took place without previous advice bythe Caoinetj However that facfappeai-ed, the fact wasthat Mr, Welles liad not tlien heard of the fact that had taken place. The managers had, perhaps, hot heard what the witneaa said, but the fact stood that in a Cabinet meeting' on Friday, the 21st of February, when the routine buainpsfl of the diiferent de partraents was over, or When it waa in order for the Presi dent to commu nicate. to his Cabinet whatever he designed' tb lays before them, the President did coraraunicate this fact. - Here thev got rid of the su^gefition that it was a mere communication to a caaual visitor, which waa the-argii- ment in the case of Perrin and Solye, Here it waa got in, and, being in, they were entitled to have it brought in aa a part of the res gestae in its aenae as a "governraental act" with all the benefit that carae from it, aa to the iutent of the President to place theoffice ina proper condition for public aervice. and aa announced by him to General Sher man, thepreceaing January, It negatived the idea that the Presiaeht was responaible for the atatementa of Gene ral Thoraaa to ¦ WUkeson or Burleighj and presented the matter Jn ita true light da a peaceful movement of the Freaidfnt of the United States, Mr, CURTIS wiahed it to be remembered that they did nbt base their argument that this waa admiesiblo' upoh the ground that it waa advice from the Cabinet to thePreai dent, but because^it wason official act, done by the Preai- . dent hiraselfj in a proper manner. . Tbe eubject mattei* of the information being auch as they were all Interested in, though sohiewhat in advance of the queetiou which muat presently arise, he would take up> the matter of the ad vice and opinions of the Cabinet officera referred to by the mana^r, M Mr. CURTIS then quoted the i^ctfcraZt.sf, and other au thorities on the subject, to ehbw that from tho time of Jefferson down to the present day the Cabinet had acted and voted as a council, of'wHich the President was a member, he hfiviug the power to decide a nueation iude- pendentlv of them, if he chooae. He held that any cora munication made to the Cabinet by the Pre.rident, respect ing an official aet then in fieri, was corapetent evidence. He reminded thera that in England the miniatera of the Crown are responsible themselves foi- their acts, and not ' as in this country the sovereign power, and that, there fore, the English precedents were not applicable. Mr, BUTLER, in reply, eaid he would not pursue the discUsiii. >n Qf the matter of tho advice, aiuce it v/as argued by the counsel that none waa either given or asked. He supl)08ed;that no actconldbe called an official one that was au act, required by some law or sorae diity. Fre- Suently acts dtine bv an officer were offiCioua and ofiicial. ould the counael inforra him under what law, what, practice or what constitutional provision the Preaident was required to inform hia Cabinet at any time of an act of reraoval? ' , ' , The only law onthe sUbject was tne aet of March 2, 1867, requiring him to inforra the Secretary of the Trea sury, for the pitrpose of notifying the accounting officers* in order that the pe?Bon reraoved could not get hie ealary, and the Preflident had informed the Secretary of the Trea sury e&pecially in confbrraity vt^ith that act, Mr. Butler called attention to the fact that while the counsel excepted to his statement that it was iu evidence' that this Was not a cOuBultation of the Cabinet, theyhad not stated tha^ 158 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. thg Cabinet was ever conanlted about the matter: fhajt being waived by the counsel; and tMs not being dn ofnclal act, how could it be evidence?- He (Mr. Butler) was wiUing to adiiiit that at the time the Preaident had no idea of, using , force, becauae he thongh-iStanton waa already but quietty, but vp^hat h ad he meant to do in caae Stanton Should resist. General Sher man had let out that aomething was said between him and the Preaident about force, though he could not remeraber what it was. They raight admit this as of Uttle raoment but if soi they raust admit all declarations to other membera of the Cabinet, or involve theraseles in incouBistency. He wae atill unable to distinguish anv difference between ^e declarations of Perrine and those to Secretary WeUea, other than that one waa a Cabinet officer and the other was not. While it waa adraitted that thia was not made for the purpose of aaking advice, they preferred to put what the Pre^iideut thought he would then do. ¦ Mr. EVARTS eould not consent that the testimony of General Shi'rman should be m lain terpreted or miscon ceived. It wae that, when soraething was said about foi'ce, the Preeident said there will .be no forpe* ' Stanton will retire, and that all the allusion to force waa originated by the witness himself, the President having conveyed to hm mind that forco waa to be used. , , The Chief Juatice expreeaed the opinion that the evi dence waa adrairsible as a part of a tfarisaction that forina the baris of fceveral of^the articles, .and *that it was proper to aid in forraing an enlightened judgment in regard to the intent of thePresident. , , Some Senators called for a vote. Mr. CONNESS called for the reading of the written offer of the counsel in relation to the teatimony of Parrioe yes terday, and it Mas read. Senator SUMJJER— What was the vote of the Senate on. that? The Secretary read the vote as yeas, 9 ; nays. 37. Senator TRUMBULL— T would like to know hoW the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) voted upon it. (Laughter), Senator HOWARD Put the foUowing queation in writing to the counsel for the Preaideut :— . *'In what way does the evidence which the counsel for the accused, now ofler meet any of the aiUegationa con tained iu the articlea of impeachment? How doth it affect the gravamen of any one of the Charges?" Mr. EVARTSfsaid- It is enough to say, probably, in an swer to the quoetion, that it bears upon the question of the intent with whioh the act charged was dope. It bears upon the conspiracy articles, and it bears upon the eleventh article. Mr. WILSON, oue ofthe managers— The question was asked by a meraber ofthe Senato aa to the dato of the con versation betvc^een the Preeident and Mr, Perrine. It was the twenty-first. The Chief Justice— The, Chief Justice vrill state how the qnestiou presents itaelf to' his mind,, The question on which the Senate ruledyesterdav waa in reference to the removal of Mr, Stanton, aa the Chief Justice understood it, butin reference to the iraraediate appointraent of a Buccessor, by the Presidf'nt sending the narae of -Mr. Ewing. The question to-dav relates tb the intention of the President in the removal of Mr. Stanton, and it relates to a coramunication made to his Cabinet after, the depart mental business had cloFcd, and before the Cabinet had sepal ated. TheChief Jufctice is clearly (speaking with eraphasis) of opinion that that is a part of the tranaac tion. and that it ii entirely proper to take thia evi*mco into consideration, as showing the iutent iu the Presi dent'e mind. The Senate Ei'oceeded to; vote upon the question of ad mitting the teatimony, and the vote resulted— yeae, as ; naj'a, 23, as foUowS;— Yeas.— Messre. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Colo, Conkling, Corbett, .Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimea, Hendricks, Johneon, McCreery, Morton, Patterson (Teun.), Rosa, SaulsburaiiiShernian. Sprague, Suraner. TrurabuU, Van Winkle, Wskere, Wille.v— 26. Nays.— Messra. Cameron, Cattell, Goiineee. Cragiu, Drake, Edmunds, FCrrv, Frelinguuypbn, Harlan, Howard. Howe, Morgan, MorriU (Me.), MorvU (Vt.), Patteraon (N'. II.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williama, Wilson, and Y^tee— 23, , So the evidence wae admitted, and the examination of witness vyae continued, Mr, EVAETS to the wituoes— Please state what com munication was made by the President to the Cabinet ou the subject of the reraoval of Mr.. Stanton and of tho ap pointment of Genpval Thomae, and what passed at that time? Witness— After the. departmental dutiee had been disposed of, tho Preaident remarked that before the Cabi net eeparatcd it was proper for him to say that he had re moved Mr. Stanton and appointed the Adjutant-General, Lorenzo Thomaa. Secretary of War ctd interim; I apkr-d him whether General Thomaa was in nqasession, and the Preaideut eaid he wae ; I inquired whot^ior— Senator HOWARD rose and complained that it was im- po&'ible to hoar the witneas. >. The Cliief Justico remarked that there was too much conyersation in tlie Ch.imbor. Witneascontinued—Iinquired whether General Thomas was in possesriou ; tho ProBidt'nt'BHid he was, but that Mr, Stauton required some little time to imniove his writinga and his papers ; I said, or perhaps I asked,. "Does Mr, Stau ton. then, acquiesce in it?" ho said he did as he Under etood it. ¦ Mr, EVAUTS-Q, Was it a part nf the Prosidint's an swer that allMr. Stautun rcfiuirud waa tirae. to remove bis papera? A. Tbe Preeident made that remark when I lu- i quired if GenerarThoraas waa in posfBBsion, ¦ / - . Q. Was the time at whiqh this announcoment.qf tbe Preaideut was made in accordriiice with the ordinjtry rou tine of vour meetinga as to auch subjects? A. Itwas; the Prerident usually communicated after the Secretaries' had got through tvith the sevural department duties, Q. Noiv, as to a matter whieh he apoke of mcidentaUy, Ybu were there the uext meeting ? A. I was. Q. While tiiere did "you see the appointraent of Mr. Ewing? A. Idid. , „ ' Q,.Was it made out before vou carae there or .after you came there, or while you were thero? Ap. While I Was there. Q. And ydu then saw it?' A. Ithen eaw it; the Attor ney-General yv^i there, and said he raust be at the Su- preme Court. ' ' , ¦ . Q. Does not the Supreme Court meet at eleven -o'clock? A. I think his buHiness waa at twelve o'clock. Q, Did you bccoirie avrare of tho passage of the Civil Tenureof OfficeJet, as it is ca,Ued, at thetime it paaaed Congreaa? A'. IHi'as aware of it, ' _ Q- Were you preaent . at any Cabmet nieeting at whlA after tjie passage ofthat aCt, the abt became the subjectJfT considerationr A, I wfts there ou two occaaions. Q, Who were, present.and what waa done on the first oc- caSon? A. The first ocbarion wae, T thirik, on Friday, ths 15tU day of February, 1867..at the Cabinet uieetmg Q, Who ii; lore preaSrit? A, 1 think all the Cabinet worfe , Q\ Was Mi?. Stauton there?. A. Mr. Stanton was there, IHiink, on thatoccarion; the Pre-ident aaid thnt he had two biUs about which he wanted to bead viyed; oneof "these was— Mr. BUTLER (interrupting)— We object to the evidence of whattook placethere, - . ¦ Mr. EVARTS (o the witnesB— This CivU Tenureof Office act waa the subject of consideration tbe?n A. It was subraitted then. Q. How wae it brought to the attention of the Cabinet? A. By the President, . ,., Q, As a luattpr of consideratian for the Cabinet? 'A For consultation and for tbe advice of members of the Citbinet. ¦ . ,' Q. How did he submit tbe matter to your considera- .tiop? , Mr. BUTLER, interrupting— If tHat involves anything he said, we object. Mr. EVARTS-Yes. it does. Mr. BUTLER— We object to anything which took place in the Cabinet cousultation; and in order tb havo this brought to a point we fihould like tlie offer of proof to be in writing. ' , , The ChiefJustice directed thecounsel for the PreBident , to put their offer in writing." ' Mr. EVAETS— We wiU present, the whole matter in writing. I Some fifteen rainutes were occupied by the conuaelia conridering and preparing the offering of evidence,, during, whichflirae the Senatora and merabers on the floor and try! spectatora in the gaUery kept up quite a noiay Conversa tion. The offer being corapleted was handed to Mr. Butler for exaraination, and was' then read aa follows: — '^We otter to prove that the Presidbnt, at' a meeting of the Cabinet, while the biU was before the President for hia approval, laid before the Cabiuet the'^nnre of Civil Office bill for their consideration and ad^e to the Preai dent, respecting hia approval ofthe biU,and thatthereupoa the merabera nf the Cabinet tlieu preseut gave tiieir advica to the President that the bill vvas uncouatitutional. and ahould be returned tb Congress with hin objections, and that the duty, of preparing a raeasage, setting f orth the ob jections to the constitutionality or the bill, was devolved upon Mr, Seward and Mr. Stanton. This to be followed by proof as to what was done by the President and Cabi net up to the tirae of sendingjthe raesaage by the Preaident' Senator SHERMAN— Doee that offer givethe date? Mr, EVARTS— It givee the da,te ae during the time when the bill waa before the Preeident.- *¦ Seuator CONEXING— During the ten (10) days? Mr, EVARTS~W§ omitted the ureciao date, "because there were two occasiona.* ,, , . Mr. BUTLER— I aaaume, Mr. President and SenatorSifor- the purpose of thia objection, that the time to which this offer of proof refers is during the ten days between the first passagQ of the piU.bv the two Houaes, liud the time of ¦ it* return with the objections of the Preaideht fbr reconai- \ deration. I onlv propose $o open the debate iu order .that ray learned friunds raay. be pos-i^eascd, so far aa I may'ba able to poaaess thera, of the grounda of our objoctio% lhe qiiestiou ia whether, after a law has "beeu passed, . under tne due forma of law, the Preaident can show what hia opinions were and what ithe opinions of his Cabinet . ! were bu'fore it waa passed, aaa juatification for.refuBing to obey it aad execute it. I venture to say to you, Senators that heretofore the struggle has been on the trial ..f impeachmeut whether the king's order should ^uHtaiu the minister; and I ^'^^ somewhat eharplv rerainded how familiar it was to every body that the kmg pan do no \vrong in the eye nf the Bri tish Constitution, and that,. therelore, the miniater was i'<'*pon8ible. But tlie.ttuection which, I brought to your attention in the struggle iu inipGachmenta in forraer times, .was whether a fcinfi, aipt boing considered able to do auy wrong, when hovgave au.'expross ordor-or* advice to a minister, could .shield the minister 'jn, the British Parlia ment. ¦ t ¦ . In Earl Daubv's caae itwas decided that it couldnot. Ilcproduced fqr his just^tloation the order of the king* IMPIV^CHMENT OF .ANDREW JOHNSON. 159 Tliat decision was thoughts to be a groat pojnt. iNow, the proposition is, we have got a king, who , is respon- jttble if we can have the /ministers to shield hi^n? Th.it IS the proposition, whether tho advice of tho cabi- ffct cau shield the kidg. In other words, whether the' Constitutioflt hae placed those heads . of the dopart- iIleutB around hira as aids or shields— that is the queation? Because if that cau be done, theu the flueBtion of impeachment is ended in thia countrv for any breach of law, for no President there will bo who cannot find subservient Cabinet Minlstera to advise him as ho Waaiteto be advised, eapecially so if the Senate aettle tho proposition here, that those Cabinet Ministers are depend- ftut upon hie will. and. that he canuot be restrained by law. uoni removing tliera. He told the Senate iu hin meaaage, tliat if Mr. Stanton had told hira that he thought the law was'coustitutional.he would have reraoved hira before it went into effect. If the President has that power, any Preaident can fiud a Cabinet aubeervient enough to give him advice, and if that advice can ahield him, thore is the end of irapeachraent. , Mr. CUKTlS-iWe would like to understand to what ipeaaagp the homirable raanager is referring, ¦ ¦ Mr. BUTLER4-I was referring to the measage of Decera ber 12, 1868, in which thia language ia used in subitance, hut I will tako Care that the .exact quotation appeara in my rpraarks:— Thatif Mr. Stanton inf ormed hira thathe be lieved the law constitutional, he would have taken care to have reraoved him , hefore its going into operation ; or Worda to that effect. I aay that if that unlimited power ean be held by the President, then he will always defend biraself by his Cabiuet, ¦ .. , het UB look at it in the Ught of another great tribunal, wiiora you, Mr. President, raaybe called upon to try somo time or another (alluding to Jeffersou Davia,) I have no doubt that he had a Cabinet around him by whose advice hr could defend- hiraeelf for most ofthe treaaon he has Cfimmitt^jd. Let ua tako another vidw. I have liad gen- tlemeusay to mo on thia question, 'Vould vou not allow a military coraiuador who ahould either give hattie or forbear ?, battle to show that he caUed a council of hia officera. and 0 ahow what their advice Was.'so as to juetify him in the cfese of hia ref usal to give battle' br hia giving battle im- Srudeutlv?" To that, I mean to answer that I would 0 BO, but I would raake a wide distinction; I would not let any geueral call, around ,hira hia staff officers and those depending upon hia breath for their offieal ex istence, and aUow him to ehow thoir opinions aa the au thority for his acts; I do not, as I have stated, propose bv any ineane to argue thia case ; I propoaed simply, when 1 arose to open the propositiou, and, I deaire now to 'put in a single authority ae a justification Tor what I hate had the ftonor to ,8*3', that Jetterson thought it the better opinion that the constitutional right of the Cabinet wae to give opinion in writing; I read on this aubject from note 3, aec tion 1498, of the second volume of "Story on the Constitu tion." ^ .•' The note iSi in substance, that Mr. Jefferson has in- fi)rined.U8 that, in Waaliington's adrainistration, on raea aures of difficulty a consultation waa held with tho heads . of the departments, either assembled or taking tueir or](>ini()ns separately in conversation or in writing; that iu lys own Admi nil* tration^e follows thp practice of aasem- bling tho heads of the deportmentB i-n Cabinet council, but that nothiuke the course of requiring separate opiniona in writing frora the respective heads of departraents as more Strictly within the spirit of the Constitution. I have here, in the third volurae of Adaras' Works, with am appendix, au opinion of Mr. Jefferson, fiirnished to General Waahiugton, on tho question of , Wasliiugton's right to appoint arabassadors, or rather to fix the grade of ainbaseradors, the right to appoint being in the Constitu tion, or whether the Seuate nad a right tn negative that ffi'ade 80 fixed by the Preaident, There is an exampje of One of the opinions that Preaident Washingtou required Of his Secretary of State ae eai'lv as AprU 24, 1790, on tbis very question to appoint to office. We have it now, to be seen and read, whereas, if it , had notbeen for trial, wo never ehould have known the opinion of tlie Secretary of the Navy was on this^'eat constitutional question. In conclueiou, Mr. Butler referred to the President's message of December 12, 1867, containing the followiug Clauee:— If any of the gentlemen (raeaning hia Cabinet. ministers) had then stated to me that he would avail hlui- aelf of the provisions of that bill, in case it becarae a law, I ^onld not have hesitated a raoment as to his removal.'' , Mr, EVARTS— The point of the President's stateraent waa that thero lyas a concurrence of all the Secretaries who \^ere appointed by Mr. Lincolu that tliey were not ¦within the law, or otherwise he woiild have had Cabinet miniatera of his own appointraent. The question, as stated by the honorable raanager, is whether the President cau Bhow hi? opiuion and the advice of his Cabinet aa to the constitutionality of a law as a justification of his refusal Lo obey the law. This ia the manager's proposition,. Now, Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, this involves, more or leas, the general merita of the case, as they have been necodsarilv anticipated aoraewhat by incidental arguments bilt we did not propose to occupy your time, ¦^vith prelimi nary discussions ot what rauat forra avery large and, im portant part of the final Coneideratioda to be disposed of in this case. -It is enough, in reference to questions of ovi dence whou it is introduced in a trial, that it shaU be ap parent that the premises, both of fact and of law, arc ne cessary to the introduction of evidence trustworthy, and to, be used and applied according to tbe theory of law and Now, tbe propopition in thia matter on behalf of the managers may bo fltdted briulty thus ;— If what was duuo t.vtbePresidentonthe 2lBt of February in reference to the CivilT enure ot oaiec act. In the writing out and de livery of these tvv5 orderu. one caUing on Mr, Stauton to surrender the office, aud the other directing (HMieral 1 homaa to take charge of the surrendered olUco~if these twopaperawc^o a consummate crime, thad the law im parts an intent to do tho thing doue, andiRO to cbmmittMe crime, and that aU elae ia inapplicable withiu tho law of an irapeachraent.. That ia oue view put forward by the raanagera. • It wiU • be for you to determine hereafter whethi r the vii>lation of a statute, however crtmpletc, ia neceeearily a high crime and misdemeanor, within the meaning of the Constitu tion, lor which this remedy of impeachmeut may be sought and may' carry ira punishment. So, too. i.-i not to be forgotten that in tne matter df defense, aU the circum-' atancoB of intent, and deliberation, and inquiry, aud pnr- euit of duty oh the part of a groat official, to arrive at a de termination aa to *vhat is his official dutv iu an apparent conflict bi-tu-i;i'U thp Constitution and the law, form apart of tho general issues of impeachment and dofenW!, '. I^ow, the answer undoubtedly doea set forth aud claira that whatever we havfe done . in tho pvemirics hiis beeu doue on the Prerident'a judgment of duty under the Con stitution of the Uuited States, and after due'doliberation, reapon sibility, upright and sincero eflort to get all the aid and law on the subject of his duty which was accessible and withiu hia power. One of tho most im portant—one of hia recognized . as ainoug (he most im portant— of the aids and gaidea. supports andd^fenies' which the Ghief Magistrate of this cbimtry ia to have iu the opinions of the people .at large, in tho opinions of tho two Houses of Congreaa, m the opinion even of judicial conaideration when a case shall properly corae before a court of whether he.has followed his duty,. or atterapted to pursue his duty, is the view that thos^ chief officera of the government under his eoniiti tutional riglit ti call upon them for opiniona, and uuder the practice of thia govern ment, convened in) council for the purpose of aniving at opinione, have niven them in reference to the biittbr of conflict and difficulty. ¦' Thia offer of evidence here touches that part of the case, , and is to supply that portion of the evidence its to what care, what dolioeration, what advice attended tlie step of tho Preaidont as he proceeded in tho streas in whichhe ¦wae placed, and in the very niatter In which he was called upon to proceed,, not bya voluntary case aasumed bv hira- eelf, but in a matter pressing upon hi.=! duty'as President,' in reference to the conduct of one of the cliief departments of the government. That is the range of the iasue, and that is the application of this evidauco. Thatit bears upon the issue, and is authentic , teatimony within the ¦ range of the Prerident's right and duty to aid and sup- 1 port hiraaolf in the perforraauco of his officp, cannot he doubted. , . But it is said that thia involves matters of grave con- • stitutional difficulty, and that if thia kind of evidence is to he adduced that will be the end of all < impeachment trials, for it will be equivalent to the authority clairaed under the British Constiturioa, which denies that the' king's order can shield tho minister. Whenever any such pretension aa thar-ia aet forth herd- that the order of the Cabinet in council, aa to any act oi the Presi- I dent, is to shield hira from his " amenability under the Coriatitutiou to trial and judgment for his acts before thia constitutional tribunal— it will be timo enough to iu- si!jt on the arguraent or to attempt an answer. Is thero any fear that any BUch privilege or an/aUch right, aa wo call it, shall interfere vvith the due power of this tribunal, and the proper reaponaibility of all other great oTicei-s ot the government to it, on questions whicli raake up the S'uni and catalogue of crimes against the State within the geue ral propositiin of impeachable offenses? It isirapoaaible that matters, of this kind ahould come intojilay. In casea of treaaon or' bribery, or offcueea in volving turpitude and rinning againat the countrvs wel- ' fare, no audi matter can properly corae in play. Of cfiurse, in aoiiio matters of the conduct of foreign atfairs, whicli might by an implication como within the range of trea son, it raay be supposed that the constitutional advisers of the Preaidont might, by their opiniona, support him in the conduct n-hich waa ^ado the aubject of accusation. But here it will be perceived that the very matter in coii- tvovetay muat bo regarded by the coUrt in determining whether thia species of evidence iB applicable, and in de terminiug its applicability, I need not plead before so' learned a court, that the question of its weight and force ia uot to bejaii ticipated. 'Senator CONNESS -¦ -~- " raoved that tho court do now ad journ. Several Senatora— '*0h, not Let us votfr on this propo sition." . .Senator Conness was underatood to say that he made the' niotipn at tho request of the maiuigers. The raotion was agreed to, and the, court, at 4"46, ad journed uutil eleven b'cl'ick to-raorroiv. 160 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW 'JOHjStSON. PROCEEDINGS OF SATURDAY, APRIL 18. The Tenure of Offlce Act. The first busineBS In court was the offer of the Pre sident's counsel to prove that, while the Tenure of OflSce bill was before the President for approval, be submitted it to bis Cabinet, and was advised by tbem that it was unconstitutional j that Secretaries Seward and Stauton were delegated to prepare a mes Bage setting forth his objections to it. Speech of Manager Wilson. Mr, Manager WILSON rose aud said :— As tbis ab- 5ection coufronts one of the most important questions involved in this case, I wish to present the views of tbe manag-ers respecting it witb sucb care and exact ness as I may be able lo comraand. The respondent now offers to prove, doubtless as a foundation for other Cabinet advice of more recent date, that he was advised by tbe members of bis Cabinet tbat the act of Congress, upon which rest several of the articles to which be baa made auswer, to wit: "Au act regulat ing tbe tenure of certain civU officers," passed March 2, 1867, was and is unconstitutional, aud therefdrevoid. Tbat be was so advised he has alleged in bis auswer. Whether he was so advised or nol we hold to be im material to this case and irrelevant to the issue Joined. The Honse of .Representatives were not to be en trapped in tbe preparation of their replication by any sueh cunniug device, nor by the kindred one whereby the reapondent aflj^rms tbat he was not bound to execute said act becauae he believed it lo be nnconstitutional. The replication says that the House of Representatives do dei^y each and every averment in said several answers, or eilher of them, which de nies or traverses the acts, intents', crimes or misde- mennors charged against tbe said Andrew Johnson in thebaid articles of impeachment, or eitber of thera, and for replication to said auswer do say that said Andrew Johnson, Presitjeut of tbe United States, ie ^ilty of the high crimes and misdemeanors men tioned in tbe said articles,, &c. There is no acceptance here of tbe issue tendered by tbe respondent, aud in support of which be offers the immaterial, incompetent aud irrelevant testimony, to which we object. Tbe advice which he may have re^ ceived, and tbe belief which be may have formed touching tbe constitutionality of such act, cannot be allowed to shield hira from tbe cousequences of bis crimiual acts. Korean bismistakeu view ofthe Con stitutiou relative to bis right to require the opinions of the beads of the several executive departments nooil certain questiobs aid bis efforts to escape from the jnst demands of law. Iu bis aUswer to the first article, be alleges tbis respondent bad, in pursuance of tbe Constitntion, required tbe opinion of each principal officer ot the executive departments upon ibis question o^ constitntional power, and daily had been advised .by each of tbera, including said Mr. Stanton, Secretary for the Deparcment of War, and nnder the Constitution of lhe United States this powet,- of removal was lodged by the Constitntion m tbe Fresideut of tbe United States, aud that consequently it could be lawfully exercised by bim, and the Con gress could not deprive him thereof. The respondent lound nu provision lu the Constitution authorizing bini to pursue any such course. The Constitutiou says the President may require the opinion In writing of the priuclpal officer iu each of tbe Executive departments upon any subject re lating to tbe duties of their respective olUces— Article 2, Section 2. Kot of bis oflice, nor of the legislative department, nor of tbe judicial departmeut. But when did he require the opinions and receive the ad vice under cover df which, be now seeks to escape? His answer infonns ns tbat tbis all transpired prior to his veto of tbe bill. Upon those unwritten opinious and tbat advice he based his message. He communi cated bis objections to CongreBs; they were overruled by both Houses, and tbe bill was enacted into a law in manner and form as prescribed by the Constitu tion. He does not say tbat since tbe final passage of the act he has been further advised by the principal officer of each of the Executive departments ; thai, he Is not bound to enforce it, and if be had dune so be would bave achieved a resrilt of no possible benefit to, himself, but dangerous to bis advisers, for it will be borne in mind that the articles charge tbat be "did dniawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas and with other persons to the House of Represen thrives unknown," He might have disclosed that the un known persons were the members of bis Cabinet. This disclosure must bave placed them m jeopardy without diminishing the peril which attends upon Wa own predicament. It is not diflicult to see tbat tbe line of defense to which we have directea tbe "present objection involves the great questixsu of this case, it tends to matters more weighty than a mere resolu-, tion of the technical offenses which float on the su> face of thie presentation. Whoever attempts to measure the magnitude of the case by the corapara* tivelv insignificant acts which constitute the technical crimes and misdemeanors with which the respondeut stands charged will attain a result far short of its true character and be rewarded wilh a begg>rdly aoprccia- tiou ofthe immensity of its real proporilons, for above: and below and bevoud these mere technical ofFenses, erave as thev undoubtedly are, tbe great qnestiort which you are" to settle is to be found. It euvelope^ tbe whole case and everything pertaining thereto. . It is tbe great circle which bounds tbe sphere composed of the multitude of questions and Is presented for youi, determination. ¦ Tbe respondent ie arraigned for a violat'on or and s, refusal lo execute the law. He offers to prove tha^^ his Cabinet advised him that a certain bill, presented.; for his anproval, was in violation of tbe Constitution;. that be accepted their advice aud vetoed the bill. And upon that aud sucb additional advice as tbey raay have given bim, claims the 'right tp resist and defy the, provisions of the bill, ^notwithstanding ita enactmeuj Into a law by two-thirds of both Houses over his ob. jections. In other words, bO claims, substantially, that he may determine for himself what laws he will obey and execute, and wbat laws he will disregard and vefuse to enforce. In support of this claim he of- fers the testimony which, for the time being, is ex cluded bythe objection now under discussion. If I am correct in this, then I was not mistaken when I asserted that this objection confronts one of the most important questions involved in tbis case. It may be,, said that thjs testimony is offered, merely tb disprov%i tbe intent alleged and charged in the articles, bat i\; goes beyoud this, and reaches tbe main question, as will clearly appear to the mind of any one wno will ' read with care the answer to the first article. Thetea*' timony is improper for any purpose and in every view of tbe case. The Executive Power. ^,! The Constitution of the United States, Ai-ticle H, sectl*^' 1, provides that "The executive power ahould be vested iu a Pr^ideut of the United States of Araerica." The per son at present exercising the functions ofthe executive, office is the respondent, who stands at ybur bar to-day ; charged with the coraraission of high crimes and raisde* meanors in offiee. Before he entered unen the discharge , of the duties devolved on him as President, he took and-, subscribed the conatitutionally prescribed t^ath of office in vi'ords, as follows :— "I do soleiunly swear that I will faith fully execute tbe offlce of President of the United' States. and will, to tho beat of ray abilit,^, preserve, protect and defend the Constitutiou of the Uuited States." The oath covers every part of the Constitution, imposes the duty of observing every action and clause thereof, and includea tho distribution of powers therein made. The powers embraced and distributed are legislative, executive, and judicial. Of the firat, the Constitution declai'es thaiV all legislative power herein granted, shall bo veated in a ' Congreas of the United States, which shall conaist of a. Senate and House of Uepresentatives {Article oue, section one). Thia includes the entire range of legislative action, ' The will of the Legislative Department is made known by the terms of the bills which it may pass. Of these exprear , sions of the legislative will, the Constitutiou says :— "Every bill which ahall have passed the House of Representatives . and the Seuate shall, before it becomes a lawiljo presented to tho President ofthe United States, and if he approve he shall sign it, but if not, he shall returu it to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objec tions at large ou their journal, and proceed to reconsider it," "If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass tho bill, it shall be scut, together with . the objections,, to the other House, by which it shall ba likewise reconsidered ; and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law ."—Article 1, aection 7.; Thus laws are raade, but laws canuot execute thpraselves. However wise, juat and necessary they may be, they are. hfeless declarations of the legialative will until clothed _ with tho power of action by other departraents of the go vernment. The biulders of our Conatitution understood with great exactness the philosophy of government, and provided for every contingoncy. They knew that lawa, to beeffective, mnst be executed; that the best and purest law oould not perform its proper office in the abseuise of IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 161 executive ^ower; therelore, they. created that power, and vested it in a PreaMont of the United , States. To insure due execution of the power, they imposed the duty of taking and aubacribing the oath above quoted on every pemon elected to the Preaidential office, and declared he flhbuld coraply with tho conditions before he enters on tho execution of his office. Chief araong the executive duties hnposed by the Constitutiou and aecurod by the oath is the one contained in the injunction that the Preai dent shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed— Act 2, aection 3. What lows? Those which raay have been passed by the Legialatwe Departraent in raanner and foim as declared by that section of the Constitution here. toforo recited. The President is clothed with no discre tion in this regard. Whatever ia declared by the legislative power to be the law the President is bound to execute. By his power to veto a bill pasaed by both houses of Con gresa he raay challenge the legislative will, but if ho be overruled by the two-thirds voice of the houaea, he must respect the decision and -execute the I'aw which that con stitutional voice has spoken iuto exiatence. If thia be not true theu the Executive power is superior to the legislative power, . » If the Executive will may declare what ia and wbat is nbt law, why is a legislative 'department established at allP Only to impose onthe Preaident the constitutional obligation to take care that tho laws be faithfully exe cuted. If he may determine what acts are and what are not law ; it ia abaurd to say that he has any discretion iu this regard ; he must execute the law. The great object of thb Executive De¬partraent ia to accomplish thia purpose, and Without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offenae or defense; for the redress of grievances, or tho protection of rights for the happiness or good order, or saietv of the people— Btory on the Constitution, vol. 2, 6419; De ToCqueville, iu his work on Democracy iu Araerica, in opening the chap ter on Executive. power, very truly reraarks, that "the American Legislature undertook a difficult task in at- tetnpting to creatb an executive power dependent on a ma- jorjty ot the people, and nevertheless sufiiciently str^ong to act without restraint iu its own power. "It was indispensable to the maintenance of the republi can form of government that the representation ofthe Executive power should be subjectto the will of thena tion." Vol. I,p.l28. The task waa a difficult one, but tbe great minds from which our Conatitution sprung wore equal to its seve- est demands. They created, an executive power strong enough to execute the will of the nation, and yet auffi- ciently weak to be controlled by that wjll. They knew that power will intoxicate the best of hearts as wine the strougeat heads, and, therefore, they surrounded the Executive agent with such proper restraint and limitation as would confine hira to tbe boundaries prescribed by the national will, or crush bim by its power if he stepped be- ybnd. The plan adopted was mdst perfect. It created the Executive power, provided for the selection of iSie person to be intrusted with ita exercise, deterrained the restraints and limitations which should rest upon, guido and control him, and out of abundant caution decreed thatthe Presi dent * * *¦ • of the United States shall be removed from ofiice on Irapeachraent for oud conviction of treason, bribery or other high criraes and misdemeanors. It is preposterous for the respondent to atterapt to de fend hiraself against tbe corrective power of thia grand remedy by interposing the opinions or advice of the prin-. cipal officers of the Executive Departraent, either as to' the body of his offense or tho intent with which he com- mitted it. His higheat diity ia to "take care that ithe laws bo faithfully executed," and if he fail in this particular he must fail iuall, and anarchy will usurp the throne of order. The laws are butexpresaions of the national will, Which can be made known only through the enactmenta of the Legialative Department of the governraent. A criminal failure to execute that^fil, and every wilful failure, no matter what its inducement raay be,' is crimiual ; may ,, justlv call into action the reraedial power of impeachmeut. This'po wor ia, bythe expresB terms of the Constitution, confided to one-branch or the Legislative Department, in these words :— "The Houae of Representatives * * * shall bave the sole power of irapeachraent," Article 1, section 2. This lodgment of the most delicate power known to the Con stitution is most wiae and proper, because of the frequency tvith which those who may exercise, are called to account for their conduct at the bar of the people, and thia is the check balanced agaiust a possible abuse of the power, and it haa beeu most effectual ; but the wisdom which fashioned our Conatitution did not ptop here. It next declared that tbe Senate shall, have the power to toy all impeachments Article I. section 3. In the theory ofour Constitution, the Seuate representa the Statea, and. Its members being removed from accountability to the people, are supposed to be beyond the reach of those exr citementa of passion which so fi-equently change the com plexion of the House of Representatives, and this isthe more immediate check provided to balance tbe poasible hasty action of the representativee. Wise, considerate and safe to the perfect work of demonstration is this admirable adjustraent of the powers with which we aro now dealing. The Executive power was created to enfqrce the will of the nation. The will of tbe nation appears iu the law. Two houaea of Congresa are intrusted with the power to enact laws, the objections of the Executive to the con- trary notwithstanding. Laws thus enacted, as well aa those which receive the Executive sanction are_ thexvoice of the people. If tbe person clothed fbr tbe time being witb the Executive power— tbe only power which can give effect to the people's will— refuses or nefelocts to en force the legislative decrees of the nation or vvilfully vio lates the sarae, what conatituent elements of governmental form could be more properly charged with the right to pre sent, and the raeana to try aod reraove the coutiiraaclous, Secretary than those intrusted with the power to epact the laws of the people, guided by the checks aud balances to which I havo directed the attention of the Benate? What other couHtituent part of the governraent could so well understand and adjudge of a perverse and criminal refusal to obey, or wilfull declination to execute the na tional will, than thoae joining in its expression? Thero can be but one auswer to theso questions. Wisdom and Justice of the Constitntion. The provisions of the Constitution aro wise and iust be yond the po^'er of diaputation, in leaving tho entire sub ject of the responsibility ofthe Executive to faithfully execute his ofiice aud enforce the laws to tho charge, trial and judgment of the two several branches of the Logi^la- (tive Department, regardless of the opinions of Cabiuot otti- cers, or of the decit-iona of tho Judicial Departmeut. Tho respondent has placed hiineelf within thiti power of ira peachraent by trampling on the conatitutional duty of the Executive, aud violating the penal lawa of the land. I readily adrait that the Conatitution of United States is in alraost every respect different from the Constitution of Creat Britain. The latter is, to a greot extent, unwritten, and is, in all regards, aubject to auch changes aa Parlia ment enact. An act of Parhament may change the vJon- stitution of England. In this country the rule la different. The Congress raav enact no law iu conflict with the Cou Btitution, The enactmenta of the Parliaraunt becorae a part of the Britiah Conatitutiou. Tbe will of Parliaraent IB supreme. The will of Congress is subordinate to tbe written Constitution of tbe United Statea, but not to judged of by the ISxecutive Department, But the theory upon which the two Cbnetitutious rest at tho present tirae are almost identical. In both the Executive is made sub ordinate to the legislative power. The Coraraons of Eng land tolerate no encroachment on their powera from any other estate of the realm, Britisli Frecedenta The Parliament is the supreme power of the kingdom. In spite of the doctrine that "the King can do no wrong," and in aupport of the aaaertion that the exercise of tho sovereignty rest in the aeveral Statea, the kindred charac ter of the theories permeating the Constitution maybe illuatrated by certain parlitimentary aud ministerial action connected with the Araerican Revolutiou, and which ^^ ill well aerve tho purpoaea of my argument. On the STth day of Fobruar3', 1782, General Conway moved, in tho Houae of Coraraons. the followiug resolation;— "That itis the opinion of this Houae that the further prosecution of oifensive war on the continent of North America, for the purpose of reducing the revolted colonics to obedieucfe, for the netter means of weakening the efforts of this couutry agaiust her European eneraies, dangcroualy to increase the rautual enmity so fatal to tho intei'eats both of Great Britain and Araerieai and by preventing our happy recnn- cili.ition with that'couutrv. to frustrate the earnest desire graciously expreaaed by his Majesty, to restore the bless ings of public tranquility."— Ha nsoard, vol, Si2, page 1071, Tho Coramons paased the resolutiona; the Ministry did not Koein to catch its true spirit, and, therefore, on March tho next following, General Conway moved another reso lution in these raore express and emphatic tenns, to wit^ — "That after the solemn declaration of. the opinion^ the House in their humble addreaa preafrated to his Jflfeaty on Friday last, and his Majesty's assurance bf his gracious intention in pursuance of their advice to take eucli mea surea as shall appear to his Majesty to be luotit conducive to the restoration of harraony between Great Britain and the revolted colonies so essential to the prosperity of both, this Houso will consider as enemies to hia Malesty and this country all those whb shall endeavor to frustrate bis Majeaty'a paternal care for the care and happiness of his jpeople, by advising or by any meaus atterapting the fartlier proficcution of offensive war on the continent of North America, for the purpose of reducing the. revolted colonies to obedience by force,"— Ibid, page 1089. Thia resolution led to an animated debate, the temper of the Coramons was equal to the directness ofthe revolu tion. The Miniatry aaw this, and understood exaetlj its meaning. They were difpoaed to avoid the implied cen sure, and atterapted to '^fhow by expreasiona of a deterrai nation to observe and reapect the opinion of the House as declared iu the first rodolution that neceaeity existed for the adoption of the second to "ett'ectuate thia eud. Lord North, the Premier, in the courae of hia remarka, said:T "The raajoritv of that House had reaolved that peace should be mado with America, and the anawer given from the Throne was BO satisfactory that the House had just concurred in a motion to return thanks to his Majesty for ' making it. Therefore whure there could be no ground for conling to a resolution which seeraed to doubt the pro priety or sincerity of that answer? He waa not of the dis position of thbae who condemned ^hera. and hy factious and seditious misrepreaeutations held thera out to the public, Iu tbe moat odiouB colors amajorily ofthatHouse was in parliamentary language the Houae itself. . "It could never make hira change a single opinion, yet ha bowed to that opinion which waa sanctioned by the raa jority. Though he might not be a convert to such opinion, atillhebeldittobehis indiapensahle duty to obey it, and never once to lose sight of it in the advice which, as a servant of tbe Crown, he sbould have occasion to give his Sovereign. It waa the ngbt of t^t House to command ; 162 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDEEW JOHNSON; it Was the duty of a Minister to obe.y its resolutions. Par liaraent had already expressed its desires 'or its orders, and as it was scarcely possible that a Miniater should bo found daring and infamous enough to advise bis Sove reign to dilfer in opinion frora his Parliament, so he could not think the present raotion, whioh must suppoeo the existence of such a Miniater, could be at all necessary."— Ibid, p. 1090. And again he said :—'^To the policy of that resolution he could not subscribe, butas Parliaraent had thought proper to pass it, and aa Ministers were bound to obfey the orders or Parliament, so he should make that re solution the stnndard of hie future conduct."— P. 1107. The&e protestations of Lord North did not arrest the action of the Coramona; the resolution passed, and peace fol-, lowed, ¦ . It will be observed that, these proceedings on the part of the Commons treUclied oh ground covered by tho preroga tives of the Crown, and affected, to some extent, the pow ers of declaring war, making peace and entering into trea ties. Still the miniater bowed in obedieuce to the cora mand ofthe Houae, and declared that it was scarcely poa sible that a minister should be found 'hardy, daring and infaraous enough to advise hi^ sovereign to 'differ in opi nion frora hia Parliament. Thia grand action of the Com mons and its results didclosed^the sublimest feature of the British. Constitution. It was made to appear, how tho- roughly'under that Constitiftion' the executive power was dopeudant on the legislative will of the nation. The doc trine that the king can do no wrong, while it protected his person, was resolved into an almost perfect sUbordinatiou of-the ministers, through whom the powers of the Crown are exerted to the acta and resolutions of the Parliament, until at last the roar of the lion of England is no more thau the voice of the Coraraons of the realm. So corapletely had thia principle asserted itself in the British Constitution thatthe veto power had paaaed into diause for nearly a century, iind it haa uot been exerciaed since. The last instance of its use W'l'S in April. 1696. when Wil liam HI refused the royal assent to a "bill to regulate elec tions of merabers to serve in Parliament."- Hansard, vol, B,;p, 993. * * The men who fraraed our Constitutiou in 1789 were not. untaught of theae facts in. English history, and they fashioned our government on the plan of the subordination of.the executive power to the written law ot the laud; They did notdeny the veto power of the President, but they did declare tnat it should be subject to a legislative limitation, under the operation of which it might in any given caae be overruled by the Congreas j and when thia happens, and the vetoed bill becomea law. the President miif=t yield the convictions of his own judgment aa an in dividual to the demande of the higher duty of the oflice and execute the law. His oath binds hira to thiis, and he cannot pursue any other course of .action without end'tugering the public •weal. The Constitution regai'ds him in a double capacity aa a citizen and public officer. In the first, it loaves hira to the aame accountability to the law in ita ordinary pro- coaa aa would attach to and apply in case he were a mere civilian or the hurableat citizen, whilo in the latter it sub jects him to the power of tho House of Kepresentatives to impeach, and that of the Senate to remove him from office if ho be guilty of "treason, bribery, or other high ci'imes and rairidemeanors," If the citizen disobey, the law, and be' convicted thereof, he may be relieved by jiardon; but the officer who brings upon himself a conviction or ira peachraent, cannot receive the Executive cleracncj', for while it is provided that the President "ehall havo power to erajM, reprieves and pardona for offenses againat the UniteoBtates." it is also expressly declared that this jiower shall not extend to "casesof imocachinent."— Articled, section 2. The sarae person, if he be a civil officer, raay be indicted for a violation of law, and irapeached for thq same aot. If convicted in both cases, he raaybe pardoned in. the former, but in the latter he i« beyond tho reach of forgive- noss. The relief provided for the disobedient citizeu is denied to the offending officer. The Tjavr-niakinff Power. I have already observed- that the Constitution of the United Stlitea distributes the powers of tho government among throe departments. First in the order of constitu tioual arrangement is the Legislative Department, and this, doubtless, because the law-making power ia the su preme povver of the land, through which the will of the nation la expressed. The legislative power, in other words the law-making power, ia "veated iu a Congresa of the UnitedStates." The acts of Congreas constitute tho mu nicipal power of the Republic, &funicipal law is a rule of action prescribed by the supreme power of a Stato. com manding what is right and prohibiting vv hat is wrong.— Blackstone, page 44. The supreme no wer of a State is that which is the hlghoat in autliority; and, therefore, it was proper that the Constitution should name firet the lo- f islative department in the diatribuiion of powers, as liroiigh it alone the Stato cau speak. Ats voice is the law ; the rule of actiou to be roapccted and obeyed by everj person subjeci) to its directiou or amenable to its requlro- mentta. Executive Department. Next in tho order of ita diatribu'Mon of powers the Con stitution naraea the Executive Department, This is pro per and logical for the wjll, tho law of the nation, cannot act except through agents or instrumentnlitier charged with itf execution. The Congres.^ can enact a la»v, but cannot oxociito it; it can express the will of the nation, but some other agencies are required to give it effect, ; The Conatitutiou resolves those agencies aud inatrUmeutalities Into an Executive Department. At the head of this daj partment, chargL'd imporafively with the due execution of ita great power, appears the Preaideut ofthe United States, duly enjoined to take care that the lawa be faithfully exo*- cuted. if the law which he is to execute does not vest him with discretionary powers, he has uo election. He rauai execute the will of the nation as expreased by Congressi In no case can he indulge the uncertainties and take tha reaponsibilitieS of official discretion unleas it be conceded to hira bv express enactment. In all other casea he rausl follow ahd enforce the Legislative will. .,,.., 'lhe office of executing alaw deludes the right to judge ofit. and as the Constitution charges the Preaident witli the execution ofthe laws. It thereby declares what is biS duty, and gives hira no power beyond,- Rowle on the Coi> stitution, p, 13t). Undoubtedly no poeseHses the right to rocoramund the enactment and to adviae the repeal of laws. lie raay also, as I have before reraarked, obstruot tho pasaage of lana by intorpoping hie veto, but biyond these meana of chanqing, directing or obatructing the na* tional will he raaly not go. When the law-making powe? has. resolved, ,hi8 oppuHition must be at an end. That reso lution is a lavv, and reeistan^^e to it is punishable.— ii~fidft ralislt, No. 70. - ' The judgraent of the individual intrusted for the, time being with the executive power of the republic raav reject as utterly erroneous the concluaion arrived at by thoao in* veated with the legislative power, but the, officer must sub* rait and execute the law. He has no discretion in tha preraiaea, except such as the particular statute confers on on him, and even this; be muat exerciae in obedience to the rulea which the act providea, A high officer of the govera- ment once gave to the Preaident of the United States au ,. opiuion relative to thia doctrine in theae words, "To thfe, Cliief Executive Magistrate of the Union is confided thfe j solemn duty of seeing the laws faithfully executed, thai he may be able to meet thia duty with a power equal to itfl ' performance, he nominates hia own subordinates and rei- movea thera at hia pleasure.'! This opinion was given prior to the paasage of the aot of Marcli2, 1867, which requires the concurrence ofthe Seat- ate iu reraovals from onice, wtiich, while denying to thS Senate the power of abaolute removal, concedes to nira ths power to siif^pcnd officers, and to supply their places terar , porarily. For the sarae reaaon the laud and naval forces are under his orders, as their commander-in-chief; but hik , Eo wer isto be used only in the manner prescribed bvths legislative Department, Ho cannot accoinpliah a legal - purpose by illegal meana, or break the laws hiraself to pr& , vent thera from being violated by others. The act8;of , Congreas sometinies give the President a broad discretion . in the use of tho raeana by which they are to be execute^ and Bometiraes limit his.power, sathat he can exercise it , only in a certain prescribed mauner. Where the law dfr rects athiug to be done without saying ,bow^,that implioa the power to uae such means aa raay be nocesaary and proper to accoraplish the end ofthe Legislature; but whe iff the means bf performing a duty is pointed out by statut^ tho exclusive raode and no other can be followed. No Cominon Ijaiv. The United States have no comraon law to fall back Upon when the written law is defective. If. therefore, an act x)f Cungreae declares that a certain thing nhall be doueby ' a particular oflicer, it cannot be doneby a different officea The agency which thelaw furnishes for its own execution must be uaed to the exclusion of all others,— Opinion of Attorney. General Black, November 20, 18B0. Thia ia a very clear statement of the doctrine \vhioh I have been endeavoring to enforce, and on whicii the pecu» liar branch of this caae now commanding onr attention rests. ^If we drift away from it we unsettle the very foundation of ' the governmeut and endanger their stability to a degree which may well alarra the moat* peaceful mind aud appal the most courageous, A de parture frora this view of the character of the Executive power,^and from the nature bf tMe duty and obligation reating upou the officer charged therewith, would sum , round this nation with its moat fearful proportions and of unparalli.'led magnitude. Such a departure would not only justify the respondent in bin refusal to obey and ¦ execute the law, but alao approve his usurpation of the j» dicial powers, when he reaolved that he would not lOb-i serve the Logialature'a will, because, iu his judgmontitdid | not conform to the provisions of the Constitution of tliB . Uuited States touching the subjects embraced iu the art|> cloa of impeachment on which he is now being tried al i your bar. Concede this to him, and wheu and where piAf . we look for the end? to what result shall we arrive? Wilji. it naturally aud InevitaUlv lead to a consolidation of thS: several powers of the governraent iu the Executive Dopart> raent, aud would thia be tho end?) Would it not ratliof ba ; the beginning? If the Preaideut, may defy and nBurp the powera of the Legislative aad Judicial De partments of the governraent, as his caprices ot the advices of his Cabinet may incline hira, why may, not hia subordinate, each for himself, and touching hit own sphere of action determined how far tho directions of his superior accord with tho Constitution of tho United States, and reject and nifutje to obey all that coraes short of the fltaudard erected by his judgraent. It was remarked by the Supreme Court of th€ United States, iu the case of Martin vp. .Mirtt, 12 Wheaton, 19, that "if a superior officer has a riGlit to contest the orders of the ProsidtiUt upou his order, doubt as to the exisoncv referred to bv the statute having arisen, it must be equally , the rightof every inforior soldier, and any .a^t done by auy person in furtherance of. such orders, would subject hiui to rospoudibility in a civu . suit, iu which' bis defeudo must dually rest upon his IMPEAOHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 163 ability to establish the facts by competent proofs. Such a course would be subversive of all discipline, and expose the beet disposed officers to the chances of the ruinous litigation. ••*»*•* The power itself is conflned to the Executive of the Union ; to hira who is bv the Constitution the conmuander of the militia wheu called into tho actual service of tho Uuited Statea ; whose duty ia to tako caro that the lawa be faithfully executed, and whoso responsibility for au houoat discharge of his (ffiicial obligation is secured hy the higheat sanction. He is necessarily constituted tho judge ofthe exiatence ofthe exigency iu tho flrst instance, andis bonnd tdcallfor the railitia, Hia orders for this purpose are in strict conformity ^\ ith the provicions ot the law. and it would seera to follow as a ncceeaary conseqiiouce that every act done by a subordinate, officer in obedience to such orders is equally justifiable. 'I'he law conteinplates that under such circumstances orders will bo given to carry tho power into effect, and it cannot, therefore, be a correct inference that any other person hae a just right to diaobey them. Apply the princi- plcfc here enunciated to th'e caso at the bar, and tbey be- coiric perfect support. If tho Preaident haa a right to con- trol aud refuse to obey the laws enacted by Congress, his subordinates raay exercise the same right and refuse to obey his orders. Tf hemay exercise it io oije case, they may assert it in any other. If ho raay challenge the Iriws of Congress, they raay question tho orders of the Presidont. It i? bia duty to carry out the laws of the na- tibn, and their duty t^ obey hi." orders. Ho may be al- lOTS'«ed to defy the legislative vi ill, they raay be allowed to disregard tliu Executive order. '1 his brings confusion, and the alfairs of the public are made the sport of the contend ing factions and conflietiiig agents. No such power Belong.B to cither. To Congress is given thepower to enact laws, and while thoy remain on the sCatiitc book itis the constitutional duty of the Preaident to aeo their faithful execution. This, diUy rests upon all of hia subordinates. Its ob?ervaute' by alii tho President in cluded, raakes the Executive Department, through teu thousand agonta, a unit, Uiiitv produces harmony. Har mony effects direction of action, and thua secures a due execution of the laws ; but if the Pi'caideut may disregard tho law because he haebepn advised by liis Cabinet, and belicvea that the C'mpresa violated the Constitution in its enactuientp,and hia subordinates inay follow ony example, dlBoboy his ordera aud directiona, the object ana ond of^au Executive iraity is defeated, anarchy succeeds order; force, irreaponsible and vicious, aupplanta law, and ruin envelopoa the republic aud its iuptitiitmns, Tf thu views which I havo imperfectly preaented are cor rect—and such I believe them to be— the teatimony to vt'hich we object muat be excluded frora your considera tion, and thus will bft determined one of the moat import ant questiona encircledby thia caae. If I have been able to arrept your attcntioflpand to centre it upon the question which I have imperfecny discussed, the time occupied by me ^^ill not bo without profit to the nation, I have endea vored to show that- the royal fiction, which aaaerts that "the king can do no wrong," cannot be applied to the President ofthe United States in such manner aa to ahield hira from the juat condemnation of violated law. The king's crimes may be expiated by the vicarious atone ment of his miniater, but tne President is held personally amenable to the impeaching power of the House of Repre sentatives.' Concede to tho President immunity through the advice of his Cabinet offieora, and vou reverse by your decision the theory of our Constitution. Let those who will abcj conduct of Mr. Stanton on the preliminary proceedinga of his suspension' under the ' Tenure of Otlice act, for no construction could be put ou Hr„ Stanton'a conduct there except that he did not thiuk he was under the act, because he nad stated to (roneral Graut that ho did not vield to the act, but that he did yield to force. It would be obaerved that the President had a perfect right to suppose tnat Mr. stauton r/ould .not at tempt to oppOBQ him in the exorcise of an accustomed au thority as tho Chief Executivb, unless be (Mr. Stanton) be- ,. lieved it to be unlawful. ^ . , ^ „ ox x' If the Executive had been advit,,_ ,^ ^ , „ Nayb.— Meaars. CamoroUi Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Con- nesa, Corbett, Cragiu, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry. ienate might know on what to vote ^ ^ °* lhe Chief Justice replied thatit was not usUal to read papers on their simply bemg offered in evidence untU they are actually received. ¦' The offer of evidence was reduced to writing, as fol lows : — We offer In evidence the official action of the Post Office Departraent iu the rOmoval of Mr. Blodgett, which re moval was put in evidence by oral testimony, by the managers. "^ The Chief Justice said thathe considered the evidence competent. Mr, BUTLERsaid thatthe managera would not object any further, -and the papers wero thereupon read. The first paper, raarked "A," dated January 3, 1868, was a papor from the Poat Office Department to the effect that, itappeanug from anjexeinpUficdcopy of a biU of indict ment now on file in the department that Foater Blodgett, Poatmaater of Auguata, Ga., had been indicted in the United Statea Distnct Co.urt for the Southern District of Georgia for perjury, he be suapended from office, and that George W. Somers bo designated special agent to tako charge of tho post office at that place. The panor mariced "B'' isa notification toall concerned of the Chahgo in the post office ; the paper marked "C" vvas a letter inclosing blank forras of the bond to be entered into by Mr. Soiner8;'and the paper marked "D" was a copy of a communication to Mr. Blodgett, announcing his susponsion for the cause naraed. CroaB-exarained by Mr. BUTJjER,— Q. Is the post office at AuBuata, Ga., one that is within the appointment of the President, under the law. A. It ia; and Mr.' Blodgett was appointed by the Preaident sometime ago, and hia appointraent was confii-med by the Senate. Q, Under what law did you as Postraaster-General aus- pendhira? A. Under the lavv -of necessity, and under a law authorizing me to, put a special agent in charge of an office whero I , ara satisfied injustice is being done by the postmaster, and uuder tho practice of tho departraent. ' Q. I am aaking yoti about the Ihw now ; we will corae to ¦the practice bv and by. Can you toll us whereabouts that law is to be found? A. l|Io, sir, not without referring to my notes. ' Mr. BUTLER— Well, air, I refer to your notea ; of course I do not raean fhe unwritten law of qecessity. Witness.- Thcqueation was whether I should cloae up the office or reraove him ; here is a letter which I wrote, ¦ Mr, BUTLER,— I do not care about your letter; I am asking you to refer me tq the law? Witaess.-Icanmake no further inference thau I have done, except to give my authority to aj^oint special agents, * ' Q. Under what statute did you do thia act? A. I do not fuetify myself under any particular statute, nor under anfv teneral statute; I comraunicated this caee to, the Preai- eut ; I do not recoUect when ; soraetime after it was done ; perhaps a we6k ; I did not take any advice of the Presi dont, or conaent or order before I made this removal; the verbal coinplaint waa the aarae as the writteu coui- Elaint againat Foster Blodgett; it was the state mout that 0 had bcen^ndicted by the distriot attorney. ' Q, Was there any other complaints? A. There was a copy of the indictment. Q, Was there' any other complaints than that ? I do not irecoUect now whether thero was or not. The complaint was raade to me hy the district attorney of the district. Ho stated to me fact that an indictment vvas found ag.iinet Blodsett, but did not aak him to forward mo a copy or" tho indictraent: somebody did so; I caunot toll who, unless he did, - ' ' Q, Why ia not the copv of tho indictraent here? A, It waa not mquired for, and I did not think of it. Q, Whb raade the iuquiry for the papers?' A. One of the attorneys .asked me about, the caee. Q. You raean one of the counsel for the Preaident? A, Yes ; he asked me what vvas the condition of the caae, or what the testimony of Mr, Blodgett, meant; I told hiin, and said that I would furnish all the orders made in the case; 1 volunteered to furnish the' orders; I did not think of tho indictment: I would have furnished it to you if you had asked me for it ; you did not ask me for any copies. .Q, Had you anv other complaint agaiurft Ffifter Bloggett except tho fact that ho waa indicted? A. I do not recol lect any now, Q. Have you anv recollection of acting on any other? A.T do not recollect anything else; tho papers are quite voluminous, ^ , . . , „ . 6, Waa not that an indictment brought by the grand jury ofthat county agaiust Mr. Blodgett for taking the teat oath? A. Yes, air. , ,l ^, . , Q, Was there anything olao except that he was supposed to have aworn faUely when he tookthe test oath. A. Not that I remember. ,. . ^ i, « , . Q It was for taking tho test oath as au officer of the Umted States, he having been in the Itebellion? A. Yoa. Q, And you removed hira for that? A. I did not remove q/ You suspended him. Did you give hira a notice that you were gomg to suspond him? A. No; I directed a no tice to be seut to him that ho was suspended. ¦ - 168 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. - Q. You did not give bira any means of defending himself Or showing whatniad happened to hira, or how it came in? A, No, sir, Q. But you suspended hira at once? A. % did. Q, Is thero any complaint on you;* books that he had not properly administered his office? A. I do not recollect any ; certainly none on which 1 acted, that I remeraber, Q, He was a corapetent officer, and" was acting properly,, and because somebody found an indictraent against him ' for taking the teat oath, you suspended hira without trial? A, I did not make auy auch statement. Qjt What part of it la incorrect? A, I caunot tell you abbut that; if you aak me what there is about the caae, I shaU he verygladto teU you; aak your questions, audi WiU answer tbem. Q..^ Did you not auapend an officer, without inveatigatioh or trial, simply on th^ fact that an indictraent being found agaiuat him of having taken the teat oath to qualify him self for that office, and against whom no other complaint^ was made in your office. A. I do not recollect any nt>w. Q; And therefore, if you answer the whole question, fou will have to answer that you did suspend hira, A. did so suspend hira ; if thefe bad been a conviction, I should have bad hira reraoved, Q. Did you suspend him under the civil Tenure of Office act? A. No, sir. , Q. You took no notice ofit? A, Yes, sir; I took notice of it. Q, You took no notice of it to act under it? A, I could not act under it. Q. How many hundreda of raen haye you appointed wbo could uot take the test oath? A. I do not know of auy. CJ. Do you not know that there are meu appointed to ofnce who have not taken the teat oath? A. As post- 'master? ' Mr. BUTLER— Yes. A. No, sir; I do not know of one; never one with my conaent. Q. Did you learn who the prosecutors were uuder this fnoictment? A. No, sir. Q. Did you inquire? A. I did not. Q. Whether they were Rebels or Union men? A, I did not ; I did not aak whother it was a prosecution by Rebels ; It was none of my buaineas ; I simply inquired as to the fact ,of his having been indicted fbr perjury. ^JJ. Will you have the kindneas to luruish mei with a copy of the indictraent, duly certified? A. I will, and of any other coraplaint I can fiud in my department agaiuat Fos ter Blodgett Mr. CLRTIS— We should prefer that the wituess furnish It to the court, I suppose that wiU answer your purpose. (To. Mr. Butler.) Mr. BUTLER-I do not kuow, sir, that it will. Mr. CURTIS— It waa a mere inadvertanco that the in dictment was not produced, I wish it now produced. To the Witness—Will you furniah to the Secretary of tbe Senate a copy of the indictment? Mr. BUTLER— I desire to have it furnished tome. I object to anything elae being put ou tho £lo without my seeiugit. Mr. BVARTS— The ouly object of having it here is as evidence? Mr. BUTLER-I caunot tell that it wiU be. We shaU want the Postraaster-General with it. Mr. EVARTS— You can^eall hira if you want him. Witness— There is another case, Mr, BUTLER, interrupting him— NeVer mind about the other case, Mr, EVARTS to tbe witness— Q, I underatand froui you thatyour judgment as Postmaster-General was that this Buspension should be made? A, Yea, sir, ,Q, It occurred not duringii receaa of the Sefiate? A. No, / sir, it was during a sessiou of the Senate, Q. So that it ia within the Civil Office act? A. So I un derstand it, Mr. EVARTS— Q. It was not in a recesa, and the Civil Tenure act does not apply to the case. The perjury for which he was indicted as you were informed was iu tak ing the oath for the office which he held. A. Yes, sir. Mr, BUTLli>ll— I object until we have tho indictraent, Mr, EVARTS— You have aaked the nueation whether it was not for taking a falde oath that Blodgett was indicted. I osk the vvituesB whether it was not for taking the path qualifying hiluaelf for the office from which ho was sus pended? Witness— Iso understood. Senator Sherman Submits a Question. Senator SHERMAN— I deaire to submit thia question to this witness, or auv other mi*rabor of the Cabiuet. Stato if after the 2d of March, 1867, the dato ol the unssaE^o ofthe Tenure of Ollico act. the question whether the Secretaries appointed by President Lincoln were included within the provisions of that act, camo before the Cabiuet for discus sion, andif so, what opinion waa given on that question hy raembers of the Capiuet to tho President? Mr. BINGHAM— I desire to object to that on the ground of iuconiuetuncy, and because ths question coraes directly within the ruliug of the Seuate two or throe timus made thiu day ¦ Mr. B UTLERr-The very same question? , Mr. BINGHAM-The aame question? Senator SHERMAN, without noticing the Interruption— I should like to have the questiou put to the Senate. . Senator HOWARD raised a question of order, thatthe queation had been once decided. lhe Chief Justice aaid ho thought it undoubtedly a pro- ' Eer question to be put to the witness, but whether it should e answered was for tho Sonate to judge, Mr. BUTLER desired to have read tbe offer of evxdoace which had been already excluded, and which beheld covered exactly the aame -ground. Senator SHfiRMAN-If the Senate will aUow me,l will state iu a word what tbe difference is. Senator CONNfiSSand othera objected* The offer of proof referred to was as follows :— "We offer td prove that at the .meeting of the Cabinet at whieh Mr. Stanton was present tbat while the Teuure of Office bill was before the Preaident for approval, the ad vice ot t)ie Cabinet in reference to the same waa asked by thePresident and given by the Cabinet, and thereupon the question whether Mr, Stanton and tho otner Secreta ries who had received their appointments frora Mr, Lia- coin werfe within tho restrictiouaof thfe President's pov^-er of removiug frora office created by said act was con- sidered, and the opinion was expressed that those Secre taries appointed by Mr. Lincoln were not withiu such re- Btricrions." ¦ The vote was taken, and resulted— yeas, 20 ; naye, 26, as follows;— a, Y''EA8.— Measrs. Authonv. Bayard, Buckalow, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Feaaenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patteraon (Tenn,), Roae, Sajilsbury, Sherman, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickera and Wille.v— 20. NiYS.— Messrs. Cameron, Catfell, Chandler. Cole, Cank- ling, Conneas, Corbett, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry, Freling. buysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Mc.), Morrill (Vt.), Patteraon (>f, H.),. Pomeroy, Rarasey, Stew- ort, 'Thayer, Tipton, WUliaras, Wilson, Yatea— 26. So the queation waa excluded, Mr. EVAKTS then rose and said :— Mr,, Cbief Juaticeand Senators:— The counsel for thePresident are now ahlo to state that evidence on bis part is closed as tbey underatand their duty iu thC'Case. The conduct bf the, proofs, however, have been raainly iutrusted.to Mr. Stanbeo'f both on the part of counsel and for personal reasons in reference to his^revious knowledge of the controveray, and of the matters-to be put in evidence from hi^ Official farailiiiritv with the questiou. Mr, Stan bery's health, vve are sorry to aay, ia stul such as tohave precluded anything Uke a senous conference with him since he waa taken Ul, We .submit, therefore, to the Sea. ate tnat ou such consideration it is possible somo other proof raay need to be offered, but we do uoi;, at preaeul^ expect that it will bo so. Senator JOHNSON asked the managers whether they had any proof to offer: Mr. BLTLER waa underatood to say tbat they had none to offer until the defense was through. Mr. EVARTS— We auppose ourselvea to be throngh. I have only stated that in the absence of Mr. Staubery eorae further evidence may need to be offered which we do not at all expect. The eourt thereupon at 3"40 adjourned till Monday, at eleven o'clock, aiid the Senate immediately after tvoca adr journed till the same timo. PROCEEDINGS OF IWONDftY, APRIL 20. The court was opened in dne format eleven o'cldck. All the managers were present. ¦ , The Defeoae Finish' their Teatimony. In response to an Inquiry ft'om the Chief JtisHfie, Mr. CUKTIS stated that the counsel for the President considered their evidence as closed. Mr. BINGHAM said the managers might desire to place on the stand one or two witnesses who had been subpoenaed ei^rly in the trial, but who had not appeared hitherto. The Chief Jastice wae nnderstood to say it would be proper to flrst obtain nn order (rom the Senate. Mr. BINGHAM— I wish it to be understood that I desire to consult my associates about It flrst. So far as the order is concerned, I talie it for granted that the suggestion made at the time the evidence was closed on the p.irt of the lAanagers, that it would be competent for na, without fnrther order, if thuse wit nesaes should appear, to introduce them on the'stnnil, is sufflcient, because tho Senate will recollect, al- thoueh I havo not myself referred to the journal, that it was stated by my associate manager, Mr. Butler, ia the hearing of the Senate, that he considered onr case closed, reserving, however, the right of calling some other witnesses, or offering some docnmentarytestt- mony that miaht be obtained afterwards. Seuator JOHNSQN— I am uot sure that I heard R— Not hia answer to the indictment. - Mr, EVA^l'^S- Hia ahfwer to the indictment, ao far aa, it was the. acpuf^ation before the PostmaBter-GeiieKal, I uudOTsto'od'you toaay'so/to'prove that he waa friendly to the United Statea and that he always had heen,,notvviih- ^iihaing he hadbeen aiaptain in the R^pelarmy. The honorable managev Btatea tliat paper is S. part of the evi dence to eustaiu Mr, Blodgett'a loyalty, audi to defeat the accusation against him. Part of it id a 16tttir Written bv hiui ten days after his removal, and the honiitable mana ger statea to you that that letter ia a part of the papers, on which the Poatmaater-General acted in suspending hiin frojji ttlHce. How that Can be, iu tbe ;natu're of things, it is dillicult for me to i^eii. Now, the honorable court can see that this is not evidence introduced, hy us in disparage ment of Foster Blwdgett. It ia evidence ibtroduced by us to ehow the action of the Post Office Department in hiareraoT val, which reuioval the Ite'anjjgers have putiu by oral teati-, inony; and, under cover ofthat the learned, manageif (Mr, Butler) 'first asks the luti'oduction of the accuaatiou a^jainet Blodgett, and then asks to refute it If this .evi dence be rightfully put ia on, theii" part, we, of courte, will meet it on oura, and fre will have ah interesting excursion frora the impeachtoent trial of the President to the trial of Mr. Blodgett on a question of loyalty. Tam iubtriiGtod* to say that tnere is a witness in the city who c.-tu testify that he was a captain iu the Rebel army, and , wo ar«- ready to go on with that proof if it is deemed desirable. Mr', BUTLER-Mr. President and Senators, I think now that it will, not be out qf -any prdur made eitlier to-day or yesterday, or the day before, for me to at.ite the grounds on which I offer this ev-idiouee. Potter Blodgett was called hereto show that, without this <;aap feeing reterredto the Senate, be had been suapended by the l^resideut of.the United Statee, as he auppuaedi and as we auupu.ied, ou the 3d of January, 18^8,: withont any violation of, his duty sCi far aa hia oificial duties were concerned, aud without. anV justificatione^' couviction of ai|y , crime, aud that a man was placed in the oLlice ae apecial iigQnt with the same aalaryiinda Uttle, luorej BO that it. amounts to a removal aud putting another man in the omce Mr. Blodgett testi fied that u^ to, the, time that he testified hchad not any knowledge that his case was before the Se.uate, and ho could gu£ no redreas. We thought that on the proposition that the President desii-ed to obey the law, except where he wanted to make a ca^e to toat tlie constitutionality of it this w aa quite pertiuent evidence. The rresidentpiit forward brioadly in, hiSj answer that he vvahJ exceedingly desirous to obey the lawsi especially Poetiiiaster-General Randall on the stand; he produces, and thc.-.rning a thiug in the tri;il of a caij3e, I raeant learning in the cpurse of judicial ovidence on the trial, not ascertaining it from tho nei<"apa- pei's. They. are not ^ilwaya the beatsource ,of knotvledge. Isay that Geueral Thoraas testified that pn the 13th the President gave the ordCr that he ehould berestoriid. Now, then, .that was fixed, a thiug thatwas not known, either in the court or in the couutry, becauae that waa,,o^. order given on the 13th to General Grant which waa not published. I want to . sho>v that ou the day before this -new mili^arv division waa .made here," arid Geriiintl Sherman oi'dl'red herein com mand, showing the act? of the l^rcsideut at or aboUt the aoine time,ano as the presiding oiricer ha? very well told ns hcretofWrb, the cbmpeteutcy ofthe aets of a party about the same time being a part of the resgest,m, andthe Senate haa so allowed testimony to cone iu. It is a part of the thing done by the Presidient on the very day, the .12th, of Fei in I ary being the very day before Thom as ' was restored. I don't mean to aay a wgrd on the question of rebutting. I don't underatand tliat that rale belongs herc^ The Chief Juatice atated that he would put the queation to the Senate. ' . . - , Mr. ANTHONY called for the yeas and naya. Mr, BUCKALEW abkedforthe rending of the question put to General Sherman on thie question aome days eince. Mr. BU'l'LBR— Being atmatter that we can refer to in the arguraent, we withdrew it. I hp-ve now, Mr. Preeidoiit and Senators,^ a liat prepared as carefully as we were able inthe time giveuusfrom thelawof the various officea iu the United States, who would be affected by the Pretfi- d(iut's claim here, ofa right to reraove at pleasure ; that ia to aay, if ho, can roiuove at pleasure and appoint, ad in,- terim. Thi^isa list of officers taken troin the law,, with their salaries, being a correlative list to that one put in by.th^ eounsel, shotvlng the uiUnber of officers and the, amount of salaries which would he affected by the power ofthe President. ' ' Inorderto bring it before tho Senate I will read the re- ^ capitulation only in tho Navy, War, State, Intenior, Po.'it Offico, Attbrney-Generara, Treaaury, Agricultural and Edtteationiil' Departments; 41.558 othcere; the amount of their eiuoluraentB, .'531,188, 73f}'87j* year. I tupposG.tbat the same course will be taken with this as with the like sche- ¦dnle prfntod as a part of the case. '' „ The Chief Juatice (to the coun8el)--Any objection? Mr. EVARTS (after examinationX— Wo have no ob jection. -,^^- Ay^P^'^^A^ have the honor to offer now, from the files or the Senaft, the message of Andrew Johnson, ncmi- natingLieutenant-General Williara 'J'.Shcrraan to b0 Gene- : ralbv brevet in the Army of the Uuited States, on tho 13tb olFebruary. 1868. ' . Mr. EVARTS— Under what article ia that ? Mr. BUTLER— That is under the eleventli article aiid under the tenth. Mr. EVARTS-The tenth is the speeches. Mr. BUTLEli— I would eay the ninth. Mr. EVARTS— Do you offer thia in evidence, on the ground that conferring the brevet on General Sherman was intended to obetruct the Reconatruction acta ? Mr. BUTLER— Ihave alreadv, inthe argument, stated my views ou that queation, aqd was replied to, I think, by yourself. I was, I ara certain, by Mr. Curtia. Mr. EVARTS— It doea not seem to' ,118 to be relevant— It certainly ia not rebutting. We have offered uo evidence bearidg Upon the only evidence you offered— the telegrams between Govemor Parsons ahd the President. We havo offered no evidence on that aubject, and wedo not see that this appointment ia relevant. that waa done on the siinie day tbat Stanton was removed —the 2l3t of February. Mr. EVARTS— It is apparent that this doea hot rebut anvevideu6e'tMat we have off'ered. It i^ then offered as . evidence in jchief. Thcf conferring of brevets upon theae two officera la aoraewUerp writhin the evil intents that are alleged in these articlea; In that quoation there ia nothing in this evidence that controverta any audi evil'intfent., Mr. BUTLER— I wish only to aay upon thia that we do not understand that thia caee i« to be tried on the queatioa s of whether evidence is rebutting or original. We under atand that tor^ay the House of (Representatives can faring iu new articles, if thCy dhdoae ; but we have a right to put ; in new evidence anywhere iu the caae. Mr. EVARTS— W hen doea oiu: right to give in evideUcfi end? Mr, BUTLER— When you get tb:rough with' competeut evidence. Ml'. eVARTS— I aupposed there was a different rule for us. .; , Mr. BUTLER— No, sir; whenyou get through with com petent evidence. Inman.v of the Statea-rl "^how In the ^tate'of NoW '^ain'pshire- the rulo of vehuttiiig, evideucfe '. do^a uot obtain in their courts at all ; .each party calla auch , evidence }.is he chooses up to the hoLir wheu ho says he has go1i through, and uo injustice ia done to anybody. The Chief Juatice put tlie questinn fo the Seuate, and the , evideuce waa rejocted by the foUowing vote:^, Yka6,— Measra. Anthony, Cole, teaaenden. Fowler, Grimed, Henderson, Morton, Ross, Siimnor, Tipton. Trum bull, Van Wihkle. WiUey and Yatea-22. 1 Nays.— Measra. Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Cliandler, CoiiKling, <*>hne83, Corbett, Crligin, Davia, Dixou, Doolit tle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, l^relinghuyspn, Harlan, Hen dricka, , Hovvard, How.e, Johnson,' McCreery, ^Morgan, Mbrrill (Me.>, MorrilUVt.), Patterson (N. H.), Patteraon {Tenn), Poraeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, .Sfovyart, Thayer, Vickers, Williams aud Wilson— 25- Mr^ 1*UTLBR— I have the hunor to say that the ca^e on the ipai't of the raanagera is clbaeda and «-ll witnesses Jiere- subpiEuaed atthe inatance of me managers, may be dis charged. Mr. EVARTS- We are able to make the aarae annouriee- meut in regard to witncstes attending on tfie part of the defenao'by aubpoena; aud this announcement on both sid65,' we assurae t9 close neqeasarily any attempt to pro ceed with evidence. The Chief Justice—The honorable managera will please proceed with their argument. Mr. BOUTWELL— 1 have had the honor, to be chosen by tue mauagers to make, the firet a^^i^'uient on the part I of the Houie of Repreaentatives, and itj is very Ukely tbat , I shall he obhged to occupy the larger part of the d;iy in I presenting fo the honorable Senate the views that I slmll ' deem it my, duty to off&r. Under these circumatancea I ehall haSfc to aak the Senate to do me the favor of adjuurn- iuff tlie court until to-uiorj-ow mormng. i. . ^^ ¦ Senator JOHNSON-^Mr. Chief Justice, I move that the. Senate, aitting asj acrmitted ' t<9 make oral 'arguments. By the amendment, wUhont the modific'atiou of iueerting *'two" instead of "another," we understand that three of the President's counsel wili he enabled to make oral ar;j;umeuts to the Senalo. That is as many ae under tbe circumstances ccald wish, or oe enabled to do so. At tbe suggestion of Mr. Trumbull, Senator COR BETT withdrew his amendment. Mr. STEVENS— Mr. President, tbis would embar rass the managers very much. Would it uot do so that I'he managers and counsel of tbe President may flle written or priuied arguments bfttween this time and tbe meeting of tbe court to-morrow? Tbat would relieve us from the difliculty. Senator CONNESS, at the instance, he said, of one ofthe managers, moved to amend by striking out the worda, '*before the adjournment to-day," and insert ing, *'before noon to-raorrow. " Acreed to. Senator HENDERSON offered the following eub- stitute :— iVouiderf, Tbat all the managers not deliver ing oral arguments, mav be permitted to file writteu arguments at any time before the S4th instant, and the counsel for the President not ^making oral argu ments may flle written arguments at any time before eleven o'clock oji Monday, tbe 27th instant. Senator THAYER moved to lay the whole subject on the table. Rejected. Yeas, 13 ; nays, 37. Mr. NELSON, of tbe President's counsel, said he bad felt an irresistible repugnance to SAy anything, to the Seuate on thia subject. He was averse to ad dressing an unwilling audience — the Seuate having indicated by ruie that they were unwilliiig to allow any further argument thereof. The President's coun sel's, by couseut ofthe rest, had assumed the direction of tbe case, aud to tbem bad beeu committed the task of arguing it. As tbe probabilities were now, however, it was not likely that Mr. Stanbery would be able to make tbe flnal argument, and bc (Mr. Nel son) wonld aak permission to address tbe Senate on the side ofthe President. He thought the rule should be so enlarged as to allow the privilege to all of the President's counsel who chose to exercise it. Under J;be circumstances, they had not prepared written arguments, und it was too late uow to do so. He was prepared from memo randa, however, to /make an oral argument, aud hoped he wanld be allowad todo so. He had lived tou long to be animatedpy any spirit, of idle vanity In making tbia request. He was aware that sometimes more was gained by silence than by speech. He was satisfied tbat tbe President ^eslred that the case shonld be argued by all tbe counsel, and he bad no objections tbat tbe same privileges sbotild be extended to &11 tbe managers. In tbe case pf the impeachment 6f Judge Cbafie, six managers and five counsel were beaid. He trasted that in sucb a momentous case, no lim^t would be^plaoed on ths arguraent. Senator HOWARD inqnired whether the properj constraction of the amendment of the Senator frum Missouri (Mr. Henderson), would not leave the door open and repeal the twenty-tSrst rule; iu short, whether it would not allow all the connsel on the part of the accused and all the maulers, should they see fit, to make oral arguments on tbe final summing up. Senator CONN^S proposed, in order Lo make it entirely cle%r, to insert iu the amendment the words, ** subject to the twenty-first rhle." The proposition was agreed to. Seuator TRUMBULL moved the following as a sub stitute :— Ordered, That as raany managers and of counsel for tbe President as desire to dif so be permitted to tile ai'gumente or to address tbe Senate orally. The substitute was agreed to. Yeas, 29; nays, 20, as follows ;— Ybas.— Messrs, Anthony, Buckalew, Conkling, Cragiu, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunde, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks. Johnsou. McCreerv, Mor rilUMe.), Norton, Patterson (N. U.), Patterson ( l\.im,), Itamsey, Saulabury, Sherman, Sprague, Tipton, Trumbull, Vau Winkle, Vickera, Willey j».nd Yates— Sii), Nays.— Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Dixon, Drake, Freliughuvseu, Harlan, Howard. Howe. Morgan, Morrill (Yt.), Morton, Pomeroy, Kosc, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, and WilUame— 20. Senator BUCiLALEW moved to ^mend the substi tute by adding to it the following words: — '*But the conclndiug oral argument shall be made by oue mana ger, as provided by the twenty-fir^t role," Various otber araeudmeuts were offered and voted down, and finally, after nearly two bunrs speut in at tempts tn settle the qnesLiou. the substitute offered by Seuator Trumbull, as amended on motiou of Senator Buckalew wiu^ adopted iuKtead of the oriRiual order. Mr. Manai»er BOUTWELL, then, at teu miuutes before one o'clock, proceeded to m4ke bis argument tu the Semite. Manaffor Boutvrell's Armament* Mr. Preaideut, Senators :— The importance of this oc casion is due to the unexampled circumstance that the Chief Magistrate of the principal republic of tho world io ou trial npon the charge thathe is guilty of high crimes and miedemeanors in ollice. The solemuity of rliia occasion is due to the circumstance that this trial is a new testof our public national virtue and also of the strength and vigor of popular government. The trial of a great crimi nal is'uot an extraordinaiy event— even when followed by conviction aud the severest penalty known to tho laws. This respondent is not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. The object of this proceeding is not tho piiuish- meut ot the offender but the safety of the State. As the daily life of the wise and just magistrate is au example for good, cheering, encouraging, ahd streugtheuing all others. BO the trial and conviction of a dishonest olr an unfaithful otficer is a warning to all men, especially to such aa occupy places of public trust. The ipsues of record between the House of Representa- and Andrevp Johnson, President of tho United States, are technical and limited. We have met the isaues, and, as we believe, maintained the cause of the House of Repre sentatives by evideuce, direct, clear and conclusive. Thoee issue^require you to ascertain and declare whether An drew Johnson, Preeident ol the United States, ia guilty of high crimes aud uiifdomeanorH asset forth in the several articles of impeachment exhibited against him, and espe cially whether he has violated the lawa or tho Conatitution of the country in the attempt which he made ou the 21at of February last, to reraove Edwin M. Stanton from the otfice of Secretary for the Department of War, and-to ap point Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War ad interim. Thee'eare the issues disclosed bythe record. They ap pear iu the statement to be limited iu their nature and character ; but your Unal action thereon involves and set tles questions of public policy of greater magnitude than any considered in tbe nclitzcal or judicial proceedingsof the country since the adoption of the Constitution. Mr. Johnson attempts to defend his conduct in tbo mat ter of the removal qf Mr, Stantou by an assertion of "the power at any and all times of removing from ollice on those departments. AU e^v^i-wiiiiJition of the Conatitution shows ihat the executive and judicial departments hive no inherent' vigor by which, under the Con.=?titutirin, thev are enablud to perform -the functions delegjited to thm, while tho legislative dePS'-rtment, in noticahlB contrast, is clotl>od with authority''"'to make all laws which shall be necesaary aud pi*oper for carrying iuto executibn the foregoing powers,' a/ia all other powers vested by this Constitution in . the govemment of tlie United Utatts. or dny department or micef ^thereof." By virtue of this .Providian the Consti tuti'bn devolves upon Congi'eaa the duty of providing; b.f legislation for the full eiecUtion, not Only of the povvers vested in Con gress, but also of providing by legislntiou for the 'execu tion of thoae powers which, by the Constitution are vested in the executive and judicial departments. The legislur tive 'def>artmeUt hi^s oiigiual powci' derived from the Con stitution. Jjv whiph it cau set and keep iteelf ii* uaotiou riS abrttuchof the' governinent, while tho executive and ju dicial departmeut? have no feclf- executing constitutional capacity, but are conat^yitly dependent upon the legisla- tiv'e department. Nor odes it tollow, aa might upon plight attention be assumed, that tho executive power given to the Preaident ia au unlimited uowcr, or that it auauers oi; corresponds to the pdwerp which have been or may bo ex;- erciiedbv theSTtecutiye of auy otner government. The l-*reaidcnt of the United States is no,t endowed by the Cou- titution with the executive povt'er which was possessed by Henry VIII or Queen Elizabeth- or by any ruler in auV other country or time, but rfUly with the power expressly grantedtohimby theCoutjtitUtion, andp'ith such other ptywera as have been confcri'ed iipoU him by Congress, lor the purpose of carrying into eifect the powers Syhich ^re granted to the President by tho Coustitutilon, Hence it may be asserted that whenever the Pi-iidldejilt attempts to exercise any power, be must^ if lus ^i^t ,b% (i'^CBtioued, find.aBpeciifie.atithoi#yinthe Constitution or laws. By the Cona'titutibnhe is Connnander-in-Chief of. thearnjy and navy ; but it ia for Cougress to dpcide, in the tivat place, whether there phall be an army or navy, aid the Preaident must command the arnw or navy ds it ia creattsd ¦ by Congresa, and subject, as ia ev^rV other officer of the army, to such rules and regulations as Congress may fi'o^ time to time establish, ' "ThePresident ''may require the Cpmionm wntu^g of the principal oflicer in each of the execufive departments ¦upon auy aubiect relating to the duties of their reapectiyo -dfticea;" but the executive oifices themselves are created by Congress, andthe duties of each officter are prescribed by law, la fine, thepower tO'set the goverument in rao tion uud to keep it in motion is lodged exclufdvely in Con- : gress, under, thei provision a ofthe Constitution. ( , ' Bvour system of governmen;t the aovereignty lain.the people ofthe Unitfed Statea, and that aovereignty is fully jjxpressed in the preamble to the Constitntion. By the TCbnetitution the people bave vCatcd discretionary power- limited, itia true— iu the Congress of. tbe United States, whil^ they bave.denied to the executive and judicial de partments all discretionary or,implied powjcr whatever. The niiture' and extent of the powers conferred bv the -Constituti rm upon Con^i?Bs have b(Jen clearly and fully set forth I)v thi' Supreme Court. (McCulloch vs. the State Cf Maryland, 4th Who;iton, p^. 409 and 420.) The court, iu speaking nt" tbe power of Congrese^ saya:-- M he govern-' ment pi hieh has a right tofdo. an act, and haa imposed on itthoduty of performing that act, muat, according to thp dictates of reason, be allowed to select the meaus." Aga^i^, thev eav:— "We admit, as all mutit admit, that the powers' of the government are limited, and that theso limit* *ire not tobe transcended ; but we think the sjund coustruc- tion of the .(Jnnatituion must allow to the National Leoi^lOr- ture that discretion, with respect to the means by wfaicji "thd'potvers it ooiifei'a (ire to be carried into execution, ' which will eijable that body to perforhi the high duties aapigned to it ifi the manner moat beneficial to the ;pebpie. If the thing be legitimate, let it be within the scope of- theConatiturion, and all means which arfe appropriate, wliioh are plainly adapted to the end, which are not pro hibited, and con^stent with the letter and spirit' of- the Cun?.titution, are conatitutional," , It U also worthy of reniark, in this, connection, that th^. article ^vhich confers Ic^slative powers nfcon tl^e Congresa -of the'Uhited States declares that aiHegislativ^ poWefa herein granted, -that iai 'granted Jn t^e GonstjtutiofiV ahall be vested iu the Congress of the United States; while in _the section relating to the.pov^Tjrs'iOf the Preaident jt is de- cl:ned that the executive power suaU be vested in,aiPriisir deut of ,th9 United States of America. The, inference from this diBtinctiou isiu hiirmony with what has' been previously ttated. "The executive ' power"'- spoken 6f ife that which is conferred upon the Preaident by tihe CoUati- ¦ tution, and ia iunited by the termsof the Constitution, and it must be exercised in the manuer prei^cribed by the, CpUf '^jtltution. Th'e words need are to be interpreted accordiiip to their ordinarv meaning. " , - ¦ Itia iiilyo wdrtny of remark that the Constitution, in terms, denies to Congresa varioue legislative powors'speci'- fiyd. If denies also to the United atates various powers, and various powers enumerated are likewiae denied ?p the States. There ia butoue'deuial of poyi er to the Preai dent, and that i,a a limitatioii of an expreaa power gj;antcd. The eingle instance of a denial of powerto the Presideiis is in thatprovision of the Constitution wherein hei^ au thorized "to grant reJprieves and pardons for olfensea ^galu^it the Uuited States, except in casea of impeach ment," As the powera gianted to the Preaident are spe cified, and as he takea nothing by implication or inference, there waa no ocfiasion to euumeratfi or recite po^'ers hOi delegated to hini; Aa tlie Constitution clothes Congress ^^ ith powera of legifilatiuii which-'are ample for all the n^ ceaaitiea of natipua> life, wherein there la opportunity for the G.\crciec of a wide discretion, it was necessary to gpe^ city such powers as are prohibited, to Congrees. The powers of Congiress are ascertained by considering aa well whatis proliibitedand whatis grante.d: while the powers of the Executive are to be ascertained clearlyVud fully by -what ie granted. ' Where there ia nothing left to inference', jiuplicatloo, or .discretion, , there ia no necessity foj^ jclauses or provi.-lqns of inhibition. Inthe siugle caee ot the graut of the full power of pardon to the, Presi; dent, a power unlimited in ita y'el^ nature, the denial of the power to pardon in case of impeachment 'b.^caihe ne cessary. Thia example fully illustrates and establishes the poaition to whicbjinow ask your aaaent. If this view be correct it follows necessarily, as has beeu before stated, Jjliajt the Pri?sldvnt».f cti9gi,mdor the Constitution, cap ex- . ercise tjiuae powers (jnl'y which are specificallv couferred upon him, and can take, nothing by conatruction, by im plication, or by whatis sometimes termed the necessity of the case. ' ¦' Butin every government there should be in its Coneti- tujtiou capacity tp ^adapt tho adpiiriietration of affairs to the changing condltioua of national .life. In tbe Crbvdrn- nient of the United Statie tha opinion of a corapetentj udicial tribunal, from that moment it ceases to be lav^. But the respondent and the counsel for tho respondent will seek in vaiu for any authority or color of authority in the Constitution or the laWa of tbe country by which the President ia clothed with the power to make any distinction upon hia own judgment.-or upon the judgment of auy frienda or adviae.fi!, whether private! ' or,' oHicial peraons, between tho several statutes of the eountry, each and every one of which he ' is, by the Constitution and by hia oath of office, reriuired ¦•faithfully to execute.' Hence it foUowathat the crime of ¦'the Preaideut ia not, either in fact or aa set forth in the articles of impeachment, that he haa violated a constitu tional law ; but bis crime is that he has violated a law, apd in his defense no inquiry can be made whether the law ia conatitutional ; for inasmuch aa he haa no constitu tional poWer to inquire for himself whether tho law was cofletitu tional or not, so itis no excuse for him that he did unlawfully ao inquire and came to the conclusion that the law waa unconstitutional. It fallows, from theautborities already quoted, andthe POfcitious founded t%ereun, that there canbe no inquiry bere and ntfw b.v thi^trihunal whether the act iu, queation ^the act eutitled "Au act regulating the tenure of certain civil otnces"— lain faefc eonetitutioufll or not. It was and le the law of the land. It was enacted by a strict adhe rence to conatitutional forms, it waa, and ia, binding upon ttU the oflicera and departmenta of the government. The Senatcjorthe purpoae of deciding whether the respon deut la umocent or guilty, can enter into no inquiry aato the constitutionaluy of tbe act, which it was the Presi deut's duty to execute, and which, upon, his own anawer, uud by repeated offieial confesBions and adniiaeions, he in tentionally, wilfully, deliberately act aaide and violated. If tlie President, lfi the discharge of bla duty "to take caro tliat tlie laws be faithfully executed," may inquire whetlior tho laws are Constitutional, and elxecutt uiose only which he bclieveato be so, then, for tlio purposes of ";overninent, hia will or opinion is substituted for the ac- -ion of tho law-making^power, and the government ia no longer a government of laws, but the govefjiment of one man. 'J his ia also true, iti when airaigncd, he may jus tity by ehowing that ho has acted upon advice that tho law was unconstitntionnL jFurther, if the Senate, sittiug fer the trial of the Preaidont, baay inquire and dfecido whe ther tho law ia in fact couatitutional^ and conviot tho Pre-' sident ii he has violated un act believed to hoconatitu- tiocal, and acquit him if the Senate think the law nnccm- stitutioual, tlien tho President ia io fact tried for hia judg-i ment,' to be acquitted it, iu the opinion of theSenate, it QI was a correct judgment, apd convicted if, in.the opinion of the Senate, his judgment waa erroneous. , l Thiadoctrine offenda every priucipic of justice. jHia ofienee is, -that ho inteutionnlly violated a law. Knowing its terma audi'e- quireraenta, he disregarded them.*- With deference I maintain still further, that it is nnt theright of any Senator in. thia trial to be governfjd by auy opiuiou ho may entertain of the constitutionality or ex pediency of the law in question. For the purpoaea of this trial the statute which the Preaident, upon bia own coUfeaaion, has repeatedly violated is tho law of the- laud. His' crime la,, that he haa vio lated fhe law. - It has not been repealed by . Con greaa; it haa not been annulled by the Supreme. (Jourt; it atands upou the atatiitc-bpok aathe law; and forthe pur poses of this trial it ie to be ti-eated bv every Senator aa a constitutional law. Otherwise it follows that the Prepi dent of the United States, supported by a rainoritv exceed ing by ono a third of this Senate, may aet aside, disregard, aud violate »11 the laws of the land. It ia nothing to thia respondent, it ia nothing to this Senate, aitting here as n tribunal to try and judge thia respondent, that the Senutora pWticipated' in the passage of the act. or thatthe respoa- dent, in the oxerciao ofa conatitutional power, returned the bill to the Senate with hia objections thereto. The act Itself is aa binding, ia as confititi\tional, ia as aacrcd in the 'eye aP the Constitution rb the acta that were paased at the first aCasion of the firat CiSngreea. If the. President may refuae to execute a law because in hia opinionit iS uncon stitutional, or for the reaeon that, in the judgraent of hia frienda and advisera, it is unconstitutional, then he nnd his BUcccBf^ora in office may refuse to execute any statute the conatitu tionality of which has not been affinnati\ely settled by the Supreme Court of tho United States. If a minority, exceeding one-third of thie Senate bv one. may relieve the Preaideut from all respouaibility for thie viola tion of his oath of office, Decauae they concur with hira in the^pinion that this legialation is cither uncouatitutional or of doubtful conafitutiouality, then there 13 no aecurity for the executiofa of the lawri; The conatitutional in- junctiou upon the Preaideut ia to take caro that the laws be faithfully executed; - and' '.upon him no ; power whataoever ia conferred by , the Conatitutaon to inquire whether the law that he ia charged to^xecute is or je not, constitutional. The constitu tional injuUGtioui upon you, in your present capacity, is to hold tho reapondent faithfully to, tbe execution of tne constitu tional trufcta aud duties impoped upon him. If hc.wilfully disregards tho obligation resting upon hira, to, take care that the laws be faithfully -, executed, then the constitu tional duty iraposed' upon you ia to convict hira ofthe crirae of tiilfully dieregaidiug the laws of the land and violating hia oath of oflice. I indulge, Senatora, iu creat plainneaa qf speech, and pur sue a line of remark which, wore tho subject leaa iraportant or the duty reating upon ua lees solemn, I should stud,iou6ly avoid. But I epeak with every feeling aud aeutinieut pf reapect for thia body and this place of which ijiy nature ia capable. In ray boyhood, fromi the gallery ot the old Chamber of the Senate. I looked, not witli admiration merely, bnt with something of awe upon i*he men . of that generation who were then in the seats which you now- fill. Time and experience may have modified and chaatened, those iraprcsBions. but they are uot, tJiey can not, be obliterated. TJiey will remain with me while life, reraains, But, with my convictions of my own duty,, with my convictions of your duty, with mv convictions of the danger, the imminent peril to our cnuii- try if you ehould not render a judgment of guilty againat thia reapondent, I have no alternative but tfi speak with all the pla^nneaa aud directness which the, moat, earnest .couvictiona of thetruth of what I utter can inspire. Nor can the Preaident prov« or plead the motive by which he profeases to have been governed in his violation of the laws of the countrv. Where a poaitive specific duty is imposed upon a public officer, hia raotivea cannot be good if he wilfully neglects or refuses to discharge his duty in the manner in which it is impoaed upou hira. In other worda, it is not poasible for a public officer, and especially the Preaident of tho United Statea, who is under a special constitutional injunction to discharge his duty faithfuUy, to have any motive except a bad motive, if he wilfully vio lates his duty. A judge, to be . sure, in the exerciae of )a discretionary power, as in imposing a 'aentence ujiou a criminal where the penalty ia not specific, raay err lu the exercise of that discretion and plead properly his good mo tives in the discharge of his duty. That ia, he may say that he intended, under the law, to impoee a proper penalty; and inaamuch aa that waa his intention, tnough all other men may think that the penalty was either in sufficient or exceaaive, he ia fully juatified by his motives. So, the Preaident, having veeted in him discretionary power in regard to granting pardona, might, if arraigned for the improper exerciae ofthat power iu a particular caae, plead and prove hia good motivea, although hia acf tion might be univeraally condemned ae improper or un- yviifo in that particular caae._ , But tlie circumatancea of this respondent are wholly ditTerent., Tho law which, as ho adraite., he haa intentionally , and deliberately violated, was luaudatoiw. npon him,.r and left in his hands no dia. cretion aa to whether he would, in a given case, execute it or not. ¦ , , V A public officer can neither plead nor prove good motives to ref ute or control hia own admiasion that be haa inten tionally viohrted a public law. .. Taketbecaao ofthe Preeident; hia oathis; "IdosoleranlJ awear that I will faithfully exKcuto, tbe office of Preaideut of the United States, aud ,will, to the best of my ability, preaerve, protect And .defend, the Cpmstitutiou of the 116 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON., United States." One of tho provisiona of that Conetltft- tion ie, that the Prot^ideat shall "take car« that the lawa be faithfully exeouted.V In this inlunction thoro are no aUalifviug words. -It ft mndo hlff 'duty to t*kG care that ixlaws, the laws, btffaithfi;lly executed. A law is well defined to be "a rule laid, set, (»¦ estabUshed by.the Uw- jnaking powcr of tbe country." ^Itispf aueh rules that tbe ConBtitution speaks in- this injunction to the Preeident; and In obedience to tbat injunction, and with reference to bia duty under his oath to take care that the Uws be faithfully executed, ho c»n enter into no inquiry as'to whether those lawe are expedient, or constitutional, or otherwise. And inaamuch as st ia not possible for him, under the Constitution, to cuter lawfully into auch inquiry, it is alike impossible for him to plead or to prove that, haviug. entered into auch iuquiry, which wae iu itself unlawful, he was governod by a good motive in tbe result which ho reached, and ii^ hia action there upon. Having no right to inquire whether the laws were expedient or constitutional, or otherwise, if he did ao in quire. And if upon snch inquirv he came to the conclueiou fliiit, for any reason, be would not execute tho, law. ac cording to the terwifl of the law, then he wilfully violatea hia oath, of otlice and the Constitution of the United Sti,toa. The necesaary, the inevitable presuraption in law is, that he acted under the influeuce of bad motivea in eo doing, and no evidence' can bo introduced control ling or coloring in any degi'ca this neceaaary presumption ot the law. ' Having, therefore, no right to. entertain any motive cou-j trary to hia conatitutional obligation taexecute the laws, be caunot plead hie raotive. Inaamuch as ho can neither plead nor prove his motive, the proeuniptiun of the law inutt remain that in violating hid oath of office andthe Constitution of the United StntOB he wns influenced by a bad motive. The mftgiiitrato who wilf ully breaks the lawe, in violation of hia oath to execute them, insults and outra- , ees the common Bsnse and tho comraon nature of hia coun trymen when he aB*crtg that their laws are ao baCthat tbey deserve to ba broken. Thia ia the language of a dcti- ant UMirper, of a man who haa surrendered hiraself to tbe counael and control ofthe enemiea of hia country. If a Preeident, believing a law to he uncouatitutional, may refrtee to execute it, then your laws for the recon struction of tbe Southem States, your laws for fhe collec tion of the internal revenue, your lawa for the collection of custom bduae duties are dependent, for their execution, upon the individual opinion of thu President as to whether they are conetitutional or not ; and if theae laws are so de pendent, all other lawa are equally dependent npon the c>pinion' of the Executive: HtJuee it foUowe, that what ever the legislation of Congreee may be. the law a of tho country are to be executed only so far ae tho Pi'caident bc- Heves fhem to be constitutional. The reapondent avers that hia Eole object iu violating tho Tenure of Office act waj) to obtain thu opinion of the Supreine'Court upon the; qtieatlou of the conatitu tion ality of tbat law. Iu other words, he deliberately violated the law,, which waa in hira a crime, for the purpose of aecertain- iug judicially whether the law could bo violated with ira-l ptmty ur uot, Atthat very time, he had reating upon hiiu the obligAtions of a citizen to ob^y the laws, and tho higher and more eolelnu obligutipu^ impoaed by tho Con-^ stitution upon tbe tirst mngiatrate ot the country, to exe cute the lawn. If a private citizen violatea a law, he doea eo at his poril. If tlw President, or Vice Preaident, or any otlicr civil officer, violatea a lAw, hia peril ia that he may be impeached by the Uouao of Reureaeutativca aud con- > ictca by the Seuate, Tbia is pi'cciaely the reaponaihility which the reapondent has' incurred; and itwould be no •relief tb him for hia wilfull violation of the law, in the cir cumatancea in which he is now placed, if tho court iteelf had pronounced tho eaiuo to be uncouatitutional. Butit' ia not easy to comprehend the audacity, the crimiual character of a proccediug by which the Preeident ot the United Statea titteinpta eystematically to uudennino tho poverument itself by drawing purpoaely into coutrovei'sy, m the courts and elaewhere, the validity of the laws en acted by tho couatituted authoritiea of the country^ who, > as much as himaelf, are individually under. ou obligation to obey the Coaf>titutioa in all tlieir public acta. With the eame'reason, and for the same object, he might violate the ^Kcconstruction la.wfl, Tax lawa, Tariff acta, cirtheNeutrfi- ilty lawa of the country ; and thua, in a aingle day of hia ofucial life, raise uueauona which could not be.diepoeed of for years in tho courta of tho country. The ovi- ' dence ducldaea tha fact that ho haai taken no step for the purpose of teating the constitutionality of tho law. He suspended numerous officers undor^ or if not under, at leaat, aa he himself admits, in conformity with the Tenure of Office law, i shoT^ng, that it wae , not his eole object to , test its constitu tionaltty. Ho has had oppwtunity to moke application througn the Attorney -General for a writ of quo toarranto, whioh would have tested tho validity of tho law in the courta. ' This writ i& the writ ofthe govern ment, and it can never be granted upon the application of a private person. Tlie President never attempted to teat the law in tho courts. Binco hia attempted i*emoval of Mr. Stanton on the 2lBt of Februhry loot, bo might havo inatl tuted proceedings by a writ of ^^uo warranto, and by tbia time have obtained, probably, a judicial opinlou covering All the pointe of tho caao. But ho ehrinks from the teat he says bo sought. Thus is tha pretext of the President fully oxpoaed. Tho evidence shows that ba never deeigned to test hia rights in thocourts< Uia object was to seize tho offices of the government for purposes of corruption, and by their lutiuouoe to enable bim v> reconatruet tho Union in tlio interest of tho rebellious States. In short, ho ris t>oru9d to tbi0 usurpation oa an Qi£cient and ueooa^ry means of usurping all power, and ot restoring the gov- emmentio rebel hands. , ','-', No crminal was over arraigned who offtfrad a more uiu BatisfaotofVexqiiscforhiacrimeB, ^Hie Praradept hadnp r«ht to do what he aays be^ di-Signed to do, and the e^- dence fihoWs that he never has attempted to do what he, now assigns as hia purpose When he trampled tho lawa of the country under his feet ' ' These conaiderationa have prepared the way ta somo do- eree, I truet; for au examination of the iroviwone of the Conatitution relating tq the appomtmont^iambiMisadorB aad otber peblic rainisters and consul*, judges ef the Supreme Court, and oth6r officers of the United btatea, lor whoae ap. pointment pt-bviaion ia made w the aecond section of tlw second article of the Conatitution. It is there declared that the Preeident "shaU nominate." and, byand with thecoiw sent of the Senate, ahall *• appCint ambaBBadors and other pubic ministera and conauls, judges of the Supreme Cojjft» aud all other officers of the United Statea who^ appomfc. raents are not herein provided tor and which Bhall be eetab- liohcd by law.'* The phrase, "are not herein otberyv ise pro vided for," iau nderatood to refer to Senators, who,upderthaL Conatitution, in caae of vacancy, and may be, ppaointe^ by tho governora of the several States, and to those appomt. menta which might be confided by law to the courta or the heads of departraents. It ia essential to notice the fact that neither in this provision ofthe tk>n6ti tution norm any other dent. Vice President, or ethter civil officer who may be rni- ¦ peaclied by the House of Repreaentatives and presented ta the Senate for trial. , , ., , —. . , .iv **i Upon the prcmieoB already laid down it is clear that tlie power of removal from office ia not VeBt«d in the Freaidept alone, hut only in the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Applying tba provision of ^ho Conatitution already cited tri the Condition of aftaursexia^ ing at the time the govornment was organized. We fiM that the couree pursued by tlie first CongresB and hyifye first Preaident waa tho inevitable result ofthe opferation of thia provisiou of the oi'gaiiic law. In the first inatance, aeveral execufi\ e departmenta W^re established by acta oi . Congresa. and iu thoae departments tofficee of variou* gvadea were created. The conduct of foreign aiTairare- , quired tlie appointment of ambaeaadore, ministers ahd coh- aula, andcouaequently those ncceeaarv offices were.estab- lishedby law. The President, in conformity with this pro* viaion oil the Cftustitutinn, made noinjnationa to the Sob- ate of persone to fill the varioua offices ao eetabhshcd. Theao norainations wero conaidered and acted upon by tlie Senate, and when confinned by the Senato the iwjraona so . nomiuatcd were appoiBted and author ized by comuiieaions under the hand of the Preaident to enter upon tjc diacharge of their respective dutioe. In tue nature of the case it was not possible , for, the Preei dent, during a seasion of tlie Seimte, to aaaign t'^ duty in anv of the officea so created bv auy person wlio had not been by hira noininatedto the Senate, and by that body confirmed:, and thore iti no evidence that any augh attempt waa made. The pereons thus nominated, and confirmed were in their ofncea under tho Constitutioii, and,byvii-tue of the concurrent actiou of thePreaident and the Senate- There ia not to bc found inthe Conetitu* . tion any proviaiou contemplating the removal of auch pereons fTom office. But inasmuch ai it ia essential to the proper administration of affaira that there, should hea power of rem oval, and iuasmuch as the power of norain^ tion aud confirmation vested in the Prcflident and in tho .Senate isa continuing power, not exhausted either by a aingle exerciae or by a repeated exerciae in reference to,a particular ortice, it follows legitimately and properly that the Preaident might at any timo nominate to tne Senate a peraon to fill a particular office, and the Senate, in ths exercise of its constitutional power, coiild confirm thnt nomination, that tho person so nominated and confirmed would have a right to take andj enjoy the office to w^ich ho bad ao appointed, aud thus to diaposseas the previous inurabent, Tt is apparent that no reinoral can be ma^ unless th& President taken tho initiative, and hence theo» pression " removal by the l^reaident.!.' As by a comraon and universally recognized principle tf construction, the moat recent statute ia Obligatory andco» tl oiling wherever it contravenes a previous statute, soft recent commiafdon, iaaued under an appointment raode 1^ and with tlie advice and consent of 'the Senate, supcreedt^ a previous appointment althoueh made in tlie eame mAO- ner. It is thus apparent that there is, under and by virtm of the clause of tne Constitution quoted, no power ofr^ moval vested eitber in the President or in the SenatOi or gL* both of thera together as an independent power; but it 9 rather a cousequence of the power of appomtnent. And u the power of appointment is uot veated in tlie Presideni^ but only tho ngut to make a nomination, which bocoiu«fl an appointment only wheu tho nomiuatlon has been coi^ finned by tho Senate, the power of removins a publA officer canuot bo deemed an executive power solely widiib tbe meaning of this provision of tbe Constitution. 1 Tbis view of the Bubject U in harmony with tbo opmion expressed iu tbo sevQUty-sixth number of the J^edamtva. After stating with ereat force the objeetiona whic exist t« the "exercise of tbo power of appointing to othee by oa oeaembly of mou,^* tbo writer proceeds to ear: Tbe truth of the priuciples b^e advanced BOCmB' to hara been felt by the most IntolliRent of those who have found fault with the iH-o\i8lon made in this respect by tbo ensr- vention. They centond that the President ought solely to havo been antborixed to moke the appomtments under the Boderal Qoverosuffli ^ol it ia ea^jr io abow tbat ever^ IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. Ill advantage to be expected from auch an arrangement would lo eubsLnnco ho derived from tbo power otnomimUion. which is* proposed to be conferred upon bim, while aovernl di-?advantnE!;eR which might attend the absolute power of ¦appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided, la the act of nominating his judgraent rflone would be ex- erci:fed, and as it would be hia. sole duty to point out the teAQ who with the niiprobation of the Senate ahould fill an pflice, Mb rcBponaibility would bc aa complete as if he were tomake thehnal,appointmont. There can, iu .this view, be no dilleronc© between anminating and appoin^og. The same initivea which would influepco a proper diecharge of bds duty in one case would exit>t in the' other; and ae no mau could be appointed but upou his previoua noraination, Everyman wbo might be appointed would be in fact Jiis choice. I But hfs nominatiou may bo overruled. This it certainly flnav. vet it can onlv be to mako placb for another nomina tion by himself. The person ultimately anpointed muat be the object of bia preference, though, perhapa not in the bighcat degree. It ia alao not very probable that hia nomi nation would often bc overruled. The Senate could not be tempted by tbe preference they might feel to another to reject tbe one proposed, because they could not aaaure tbeuiselvea that the peraon they might wieh would be brought forwardby a eecond, or oy any subsequent norai- nntion. They could not even be certain that a future nomination wduld prcBeht a candidate in any degree raore acceptable to thera. And a? their dlaaeut might cast a kind Cil'Btigma upon the individual rejected, aud raight have the Appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the Chief Magistrate, it ia not lively that their aanctiou would often be refuaed, where there were not special aud strong rea- fions for the refusal. To what purpoae, th^n, require th^ co-operation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity of their concurrence Would have a powerful, though in general, a silent opera tion. It would be an excellent check upon the. spirit of fa- voritiam in tbe President, and would tend greatly to pre venting the appointment of unfit characters, fVora Stute prejudice, from faraily connection, from peraonal attach ment, or from a view to popularity. And, in addition to this, it would bean efficaciouB source of stability in the adrainistration. It will be readily comprehended ' tbat a man who had liiraself the aole diaposition of office would be governed nsuch raore by his private inclinations and interests thau when he waa bound to aubmit the propriety of his choice to the dictation and deterniluation of a diiferent and inde pendent body, and that bodv an entire branch of the Lo- ^slature. The poasibility of rejection wonld be a Strong motive to care in propoaiug. The danger of his own repu-r tation, and, in caae 'of an elective magistrate, to his po etical existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritipra, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of tbe public, could hot fiul to operate aa a . barrier to one and to tho other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward forthe nioetdiatinguisliedor lucrative atations candidatea who had uo other merit than that of conHing frora tlic samo State ta which he particu larly belonged, or of beiug in eorae wav or other person allv allied to him, and posscseing the neceaaary insignifi cance and pliancy to render thein the obaequious instru ments of his pleasure. When tho President has raade a nomination for a par- f cular office, and .that nomination has been confirmed V tlxe Senate, the conetitiutional power of the Preai-r Qent is exhausted with reference to that officer. All that he can do under the Couiititution is, in.the aniue manner to nominate a aucceeeor, who may be either con- nruied or rejected by the Senate. Considering the powers of the President ex'esetwoclauaea, it ie equally clear, cannot be understood to coniDi-ehcnd the power of filling vacan cies in theSenate, forthe following reasona : -Firat, the relation in nhioh that clauee stands to the other, which declares ' the general mode of appointing officers of the United Staftes, denotes it to be notning more than a supple ment to the ' other, for the purpoae of eatabliehiug -an auxiliary method of appointment in caeca to which the general method waa inadequate. The ordinary power of appointment ia confided to the Pr?pidput and Senate Jointly, and can therefore only be exerciaed during the session of the Seuate: but aa it would have been improper to oblige this body to be coutiliuittlly in sessioTi fbr the ap pointment ofi officera, and^aa vacanciea might happen m their recess, which it might beaieceaaarv for the public aer vice to fill witlioutdelfiy, the succeeding clauee is evidently intended to authorize the President, tiingLu, to raake tem porary appointinenta "during the recess of the Seuate. by granting coramieaions whiCh should expire at the end of their next bearinn." ¦ , Tbe argumenta wliicU I have thus offered and the au thoritiea (juoted show that tho' President had not the power dunng' the seasion of the Sdnate to reraove cither theSecretary of War or any civil officer from office by vir- tue of the Cowatitution. Thepower of rera'oval during the recess of the Seuate was recognized hy the act of l;»9. and tolei'ated by tho country upou the opinniona of Attorneys- General till 18t)7. ThePreaident claims, however, aud aa ' an incident of tho power of removal, the power to auBpend from office indefinxtely any odtcer'of the government; but inaarauch afendent for their ¦ poaitiohaand emolumenta upon hie will. Moreover, this claim waa hever asserted by any President, or by anv puib- lic man, from th'6 beginning of the governraent until the present time. The history of the coarecr of Andrew John- uon Bho|vs that he has been driven to the assertion of this claim by circurastances and eventa connected with hia ciiminal design to. break down the power of Congress, to subvert the institutiona of the country, and thereby' to ¦ restore the Union in the intereat of those who participated iu the Rebellion, Having eiitcved upon tln^x:dreer of crime, bcsoOn found it easential to the Hccora plishment' of^bis purlpose toeecurothe support of the immenae retinue of public offidere of overy grade and description iu the country. Tfais be. could¬not do without making thera entirely dependient''Upon> his- will; aud in order that they inight realize their dependouce, nnd thus be made eubaervient to biBpnrposoB;:he determined to assert an authority over them' unmithnrized b.y the Consti tution, and theretofore not attempted by afiy Chief Magia- trate. Hia conversation witli Mr., Woodi in tbe:autumu of 186B, fully discloses this purpose. ; i . . . . Previoua to the passage ofthe Tenureof Office acthefiad removed hundreds of faithful and patriotic public officer, to tho great detriment of the public seiwice, andi-followed by an mimcDse loss of the public rcvenuee. At the tim0u>f the naesage of the act bc was so^ far involved in 'nia mad- Bcheraes— Bclicmca of' ambition and revongc~t^t it wae, in hia view, impossible fdr him to retrace hie steps. He consequently determined, by varioua arti- ficcB and plana,, to undermine that law and secure to himtelf, in defiance jof tho will of Congress .and of the country, entire control of the officers in the civil ser vie . ahd iu.the anny and in the navy. He thus became gradually involved in an unlaivful undertaking, from ivhich he could not reti-eat, Inthe presence of the proceedings against him by the House of Repre=fentatives he had no al ternative but to aaecrt that under the'.Confititution power was vested in the President exclusively, without the ad vice ftnd consent of the Senate, to remove from office evcxy person au the service of' the country. This policyj aa yet acted iipon in part, and. developed chiefly in the civil ser vice, haa already produced evils Avhith threaten the over throw of the fiovernment, Wheu he. removed, faithful public oflicers, and appointed othere whose only .claim to coiiaideratidh was their unreaeoiiiiiK devotion to hisioiiterest aud unhesitating pbedience to hia will, they compensated thcrabclveB for thia devotion and this obedience by fraud upon; the revenues, and by crinies against the lawa of the laud. Heuceithaahapiiened thatiu the internal . revenue service alone, chiefly through the -corruption of men wllora he has thua apptfiuttSd, the losses have amounted to not leaa than tweuty-fivev aud probably tQ»more thnn fifty mil lions of dollara ayear.during.thelaBt.two years. In the preaence of theae evils, which were then only par tially realized, tho Congrosa ofthe United States paased thu 'lenure of Office aet, as a barrier to' thoir further pjo- gresa. Thia aot thua far haa proved inellectual as a com plete remedy ; and now the Preeident. by his auswer to the articles of irapeachraent, aseerta hiB' right to violate it al together, and by an "interprotatitai of the Conatitution which la allied hostile to ita letter and to the peace and welfare of the country, he asauniee to himself absolHte and unqualihed power over all the offices aud ofiicers of tbo country. /Ihe r^ovnl of Mr. Stahton, contrary to the Conatitution and the laws, is the particular crime of the Proaidcnt tor which we now demand his conviction The extent, the evil character, andthe dangerous nature of the IS ac4u1tt.1l yoil suirrender tho govcrnluentinto the handa ol a usurping and iiuscl-iipillonsman, who will n«e all tho vast power ho now clninis, for tho corruption of orerv branch of the pubuo Bcrvice and tho final oveithtow of thu ptiblic liberties. . . NoriBitanyexoUEefel'the President that he has taken the advice of his Oabinet omcers in support of hia claim. In the hm place, he had no right under the (Jonstitution fo the advice of Uio head of a department, except upon subjects relating to tho duties of his department. If tho rreeident has ehosen to seek the advice of his Cabinet unon other matters, and they have eeen fit to give it upon subjects not relating to their respective dfepartftiente, ft is advice which he had no constitutional aathority to asfc ?» tn hi^'^iSi fi*^ lYf,"!^ not *oimd to give, and that adviS fj^t ^l^'i^^^^"' *">¦"=• PUTO'es of this investigation and l»S U^l^h J'.I.T^."^ P"^*''' pei-sohs meroly. But of what ISmf.°,h^t'?i,'il®i?'^iV^ '^f nijawho,in the first instance, ™iS i'il^M''*^ holtf their officea by the will of tho person who seeks their advice, and who, uijderstaad most cloarhr that If the advice they givo shoiild be contrary to ffi wwhea of their master, they.w,oiild be at, oncS anJ in cSu formity with their own thijory of tire rights^S^ the pS ffnfc?* °' ""' '^^^' ?""='> fliey hold? Havfg hrst made theso men entirely depehden* liuoii his k ill ho te t?'"='^»- 'SI' '"'''*§'= l*» '" the ap^Uca fon of tta prin- ¦aFth'F»';w''Jife''^ ^'l'?'!,*"* theylioia their plScis to &,? „vn„itfj fi?°.'ff °' ""? government. Oouiaichave £t^Ss"'"''''j yiat ttiey, under such oircumstances, wouia wTofffi who'^SiShtTtr W«»'¥: ,««BfeeaWe to tha IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON, lf9 The Cabinet reapond . to Mr. Johnaon as old Polonioua to Hamlet:— ' ¦ ^ Hamlet aays :-7Do you see yonder cloud that's alrUost m diape of ft camel? J^loyiiub—Ajxd- by the maas, and 'tia like a camel, in- teed. j&Tamfet— ^Methinke it ia like a weaael. Pqloniiis—Xt ia backed like a weasel. Hamlet -Or like a \^hale? Polonius—Very like a whale. The gentleraen of the- Cabinet utideretood the poaition that they occupied. The Preaident, iii hia message totbe Sqnate upou the auapeuajon of Mr. Stantou, iu which he , Bays that he took the' ndvibo Of the Cabinet in reference to hia action unon the bill regulating the tenure pif civil officeai apeaka thua;— - **The bill had then n'ot become a law. The limitation uiiou the power of removal waanot yctiftniJoaed, and. there was yet tirae to make any changes. If any one of ^these gentlemen had theu aaid to rae thathe would avail hiraself bf the provisionB of that bill incase it became alaw,. I shonld not have hesitated a raoraent aa to hia reraoval." Having indulged hia Cabinet in auch freedora of opinion when he consulted thera iu reference to the conetitutjon- ality ofthe bill, and haviiig covered^hiineelf and them w-ith public odium by hie announcement] he now vaunts their opi'nion^; extorted bj-- power and- given in aubgervienoy. that the law itself to.ay be Violated with impunity. Tlu-^. saya the Preeident, is the exei'cise of iny constitutional right to the opinion of my Cabinet. I. says the President, am rosponSible'for my Cabiuet. Yee, the President is re- BponeiDle for the opinions and couduct, of men who give such advice aa ia demanded, otfd give it in fear aud trem bUng loft they be at oftce deprived of their p(aces. Thia-ia the Presidents'^ idea of -a Cabinet, but it ia an idea uot in bahnony with the theory of the Constitution. -The Preaident is a ni,an of strong ivill, of violent pas-. sions.' of unliuiiti'd ambition, with capacity to employ an'd uee timid men, adheeive men, subservient meu, and cor ruptmen, aa the iriatruincnts of hie designe. It ia the truth of. hiatory that ho has 'injured every person with wboih he haa had- confidential relatione, and many hnve escaped ruin ouly by withdrawiugfrom his aociety alto- ¦ gether. He has ono rule of life : he attempts to nee every man of ipower,"caiJacity, or influence within hia reach. SucceedinEt in hia attempts, they ai-e in time, and usually in a 'short time, ifttcrly ruined. , If the considerate fice from him. if the bravo and patriotic resi-t hi:j achemea or expose his plans, heattacka theni with all the eupinery and Iiatrona^e tf his oflice, and pursues them ^ith jiHthe yio- ence of nie ptjrrioUnl hntred. He attacks to deatrov all who \A'ill npt become hia iuetruiucnte, aud all who becomo His instruraentij avo destroyod in tho uho. He sparea no one. Ali'eady this purpose of hia life ia illustrated in the treatment of a gentlehian who' uas of cou^uael for the re spondent, but who has never appeared iu hia behalf. The thanks ofthe country are due to those dietinguished soldiers ^\ho, terapted by the President by otlcre of king doms which wCi'c uot hiii to give, refused to fall down and worahip ,the tbnipter. And the thauka of the country are not less due to Gfeuenil Kmory, who, when bi'ought into the preaence of the PreeidL^ut oy 9. rcqneat whicii he oouVd not (iispbev,.at duce ^ou^ht to protect himat-lf asain'thia mucUtuaTibuBby breeontiugtohira the law uppn, the sub ject of mJlitary ordera. The expdrience and the fate of Mr. Johnson'a eminent adherents are lessons of warning to. the country and to mankind ; and the more ei^inout ab,d dictinguiahod of his adherenta have furnished the (uost ^uelancholy leaaonafor thia aud fbr aucceeding generations. It is not that men are ruined when they abandon ra partv ; but iu periods of national trial and pd-il the people willnot tolerate those who, iu any degree or under any circum8tanc(!e, falter in their devotion to the righta and interealsof the republic. ' In the public judgraent, which ie seldom erroneous in regard to public duty, devotion to the country, and adherence to Mr, Johnson are aud have been wholly inconsistent. ¦/ , . Carpenter's historical paiutin'gof Eraanqlpation is. a fit representation of an event the moat illuaf^-ious of any in the annala of Araerica aince the adoptiou of the Conatitu tion. Indeed, it ie eecond to the ratification of the Coneti- tution, only in the fact that that iuefruiuent. as a pieana of organizing and prceerviB^ the nation, rendered emancipa tion poaaible. The principal figure of the ecpne ia tho im mortal LincolUi whose great virtuea eudear hia nsiine and memory to all mankind, and whose untimely and violent death* theh tho aaddeat event iu dur national experience, but now not deeiued ao great a calaraity to the people who loved Mra and mourned for hiiu &a no public man was ever before loved or lamented, aa is tho shame, humilia tion, disgrace aiid suffering caused by the misconduct and crimes of his . aupcessor- It was D,atural and neceaaary that tho artist ' should arrange the personages of the group ou the right hand and on the left- of tho principal figure. Whetll/ar the particular aa- signmoiit ' waa by chance, by the taste of the artist, or by the influence of a mysterious providence which worka through hunian agency, we^^know not. But on the right of Lincoln ar^ two etatesmen aud patriots, who, la allthe triala and viciesitudeS of theee eventful yeara, have reniaiued flteadJast to liberty., to . iiiptice, to the prlncjplea of OowafitutinnalgovcmUieni; Seiuvtors and Jlr. Chief Juatlcej in this presence 1 venture not to pronounce theii namea. j' On the left of Xlncofn aTe'nT& figures representuig the other members of hia Cabinet. One . of these is no longer among the living ; he died before tbe evH days came, and we may indulge in the l^ope that be would ^ave ^soaped the fate of his-aseoclates.' Of the other four, three have beeu active in counacling and supporting t^o Prepident in Ina atttympta to aubvert thegi'veriimeUt. They ave already ruined men. Upon the cauVawi they are elevated tpthe aumraitof virtuous ambition. Yielding to the ac- ductioneof power, they have fallen. Their example and tate may warn uB, but their advice and cOuna'el, whother given to thia tribunal or to hfra who iaou trial before this tribunal, cannot be accepted as the judgment of wise or of patriotic raen. Leaving tlie discussion of the provisions of the Conetitij- tion, Iam now prepared to aak your attentibn to the character and history of the act of 1789, ou which, iftress has been laid bv the Pres-ident in hia anawer, and by the loarnedcounael who opened the case for the reapondent. The diecnsaion in the House of Representatives in 1789 re lated to the bill eatabliehiug a Department ot Foreign Af-** fairs. The firat aection of that bill"., aa it originally paaaqd tbo Houee of Repreeentativea, after recapitulating the title of the officer who wae to x^ke charge of the depai-c- ment, and Betting forth his duties, contained theee words in reference to the Secretarv of the Department:— "To be removable from office by the President of the United ¦ States.'i -The Houee, in Cofpraittee of the Whole, dia cuased thia provision du;ring several days, and all the leading merabers ofthe body appear to have taken part in the debate.. As ia well known, there Wa§ a difier- ence of opinion at the tirae aa to the meaning of the Coufititution,^ Some contended that the power gf removing civil oflicers Was veSte^ in the President, absolutely, to be exerciaed by him, ycithout consultation with the Senate, and this aa well when the Senate was m eesaion aa duiing vacations. Othei a maintained that tfie- initiativBvin the reraoval of a^ piublic ofijcer muat bo taken by the President, but that there could be no actual .remo val except bytheadvice and consent of the Senatej,and that thia nile waa applicable to th,e' pbwera of the Prea dent, aa well during the vacation aS during the eeaaion of the Senate, Othera mftintniucd tliftt during the sesaion of the Senate, while the initiative « as in the President, the actual removal of Acivil officer could, be efl'ecttid only unon the advice and conaent of the Senate, but that during ~the Vaca-tiona the Preeident might remove sudh officecfi and lill their placea temporarily, under corauiifi'sious, to expire at the end of the next, aeaaion of the Senate. Mr, Jliiflieon ni:iintained the firet of theae bropoamohs, and he may be taiiid to be the only person of liietorieal reputation at the present day who expressed correeponding opiuiona, al though uudoubtedly hiB views were* suetaiucd by a. con- iaiderablo' number of merabers: Itis evident from an ex- araiuiitinn of tlie debate that Mi-. Madison's vieue were gradmuUiyaudi, fintdly, successfullv undermined bv the dis- , cussion on that occasion, Aa ft well known, Koger Sherman was then pne of the prioB ft eminent merabere of that body. He waa a eignur of the Doclar.ition of -Independence, a member of the coh- ¦ vention \\ hich framed the Conatitutiou of the United , Statea, aud a meraber of the Houap of P.epreseiltativeB of the Firat Congress. Hewa^ undoubtedly one of the ino'^t illuatrioua men of the conatitutional period of Ameiican history ; and in each succeeding generaticin there have eminent persona of hia blood and name: but at ,no period haa his faraily been raore distinguished than at the prcaeut time. Mr. Sherman tooka leading partin tho discuaa'ion, and there: isno doubt that tlie views which he entertaiued aud expreeaed had a large influence in producing the re sult which waa finally reached. The irCport of the debate is found in tlie firat volume of the Annals of Congiej^a ; and . I quote from the remarks made by Mr. Sherman, preserved ou nages 510 and 511 of that Volurae :— "Mr. Sherman— I conaider this a very important, sub ject in every pointof viewj and therefore worthy of full diacussion. Iu ray raind it involves three question. First. Whether the President has, by the Couetitution, the right to remove an officer appointed by aud with the advice and conaent of theSenate. No gentleman conteiida but that -the advice and consent of the Senate are necessary to make Lithe appointment in all casea, unleea in inferior officers Where the contrary ia establiahed bylaw; but then they allege that although the consent ofthe Senate be necessary to the appoiutmeut, the Preeident alone, by the nature gf hia office, haa the power of removal. Now it^appears to me that thie opinion ia ill-founded, becauee this provision waa intened for some useful purpose, apd by that construc tion would anawer none at all, I think the concurrence of the Scnate'aa uecessary to appoint an officer ae theuoniina- tiOn of the Preaident; they are constituted aa mutual checks, each haviug a negative upon the other. 'T conaider it as an eatablished principle that the power vWhich appoints can also remove, unless there, avc express .exceptioua made. Now the power which appoiuta the judgescaunot displace them,'becauBe there is a* constitu tional restriction in their favpr; otherwise the Presi dent, by and with the advice ahd conseut of the Senate, beiing the power which appointed thera, would be sufficient to reraove thera, Thia is the construction in England, iwhere the Kiughas the powerof appointing judges; it was ideclared to be during pleasure, and they might e removed when tha monarch thought proper. It ia a general princi ple iu law,' as ivell as reason, that there shall be the eame authority to remove as to establish. It is ao in le^lation^ .wJiero tno Bcverol branches, whoae concurrence i8,neceaT sary to pa^a a law, muat eoucur in repealing it^ Juat so I take it to be in caaee of appointment, and the Preaideut alone may remove, when he alone appoints,' as in the case qf inferior officeato be eatabliabed by law. '.'«.,* • « * * « • "As the office ie the mere creature of the Legialature we zuay form it under such t^gulationa as we pleasei witb 180 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. Such powers and duration as we think good 'policy re- ouireB. ' We raay say he shall hold hia office duriEijg good behavior, or that he Bhall be annually elected. We may eay he ehair lie displaced for neglect of duty, and point out how he shall be convicted of it n withont calling upon tbe Preaident or Senate. • > . ¦ "The third question is. if the Legislature has the power to authorize the Preaident alone to remove thia officer, whether it ia expedient to invest hira with itf I do not believe it abeolutely neceaeary that ho ehould have such power,. becauee the power of auapending would anawer all tho purposes which gentlemen have in view by giving the power of removal. Idonot think that the officer ia only to be reraoved by impeachment, aa ia argued by tho geuilc- man from South Carolina (Mr. Sraith), because he ia fhe mere creature ofthe law, aud we can direct him to be re moved on conviction of miaraanaeeraent or inability^ with out calling upon theSenate for their concurrence. Butl believe, ii we make no auch provision, he may constitu tionally be removed by tho Prcsideut, by aud with the ad vice and conaent of the Senate; and L believe it would bo most expedient for ua to say nothing in the clause ou thia aubject,** I may be pardoned if I .turn aside for a moment, and, addressing myeelf to the learned gmitleman of Counael for the respondent who ie to follow me in argument, I request himto refute, to overthrow the conetitutioual argument of hia illuatrioue ancestor, Roger Sherman. Doing thie he will have overcome the nrst^out only the firat, of a series of obstacles in the path of tho President. • In harmony with the views of Mr, 'Sherman was the ' opinion expressed b.y Mr. Jackaon, of Georgia, found on page 506 of the same Volume. He aaya: "I ahall agree to give him (that isthe President) the flame power in caaea of removal that ho has in appointiug, but nothing raore. Upon this principle, I would aeree to ' give him the power of Buapeut?ion dunug the receaa of the Senate. Thia, in my opiuion, would effectually provide against thoae iucouveniences^ which have heen appre hended, and no(t expdee the Government to thoae abuaca we have to dread frora the wanton and uncontrollable au- ' thority of removing ofticerB at pleasure.'' It may be well to obaerve that Mr. Madison, in maintain ing the absolute powerof the President to remove civil- Officers— coupled with his opinions upon that point— states dootrineB concerning the power of impeachment which would be wholly unacceptable to this respondent. And,, indeed, it is perfectly apparent that without the existence 'of the powerto irapeach and remove the Preaident of the Uuited States from office, iu the manner ,maintained, Mr, Madison iu that debate, said :— - " The danger to liberty, the danger of maladministra tion, haB not yet been found to lie so much in the facility of introducing improper persona into office as in the diffi culty of displacing those who are unworthy of the public trust. (Page 615, vol. 1, Anuols of Congress.)** Again hp says :— *'PerhfUPB the great dan^r, as has been observed, of abuae in the executive power liea iu the iraj>roper continuance x>f bad raen in office. But the power we contend for will not enable him to do thia ; for if an unworthy raan be con tinued iu office by an unworthy President, the Houae of Kepresentatives can at any time impeach him. and the Senate can remove him, wnether the President chooaes or not. The danger, then, consists merely in thia:— The Pre sident can displace frora office a man whose merits re quire that be should be, coutinued in it. What will be tho motives which the President can feci for such abuse of bis power and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the firat place, he will be imp(!,achable by this House be fore the Senate for such au act of maladminietration ; for I contend that the wanton reraoval of meritorious officera would subject him to impeachment and remoyal from his high trust. (Page 517, vol, 1, Annals of Congress.)" It is thus Seen that Mr. Madiaon took great care to con nect hia opinions of the power of remoyal in the President with a diBtinct declaration that if this power was impro perly exerciSf^ by the Preaident he would himaelT be liable to impeachment and removal from office. If Mr. Madiflon' a opinions were to be accepted bythe President as a whole, be would be aa defeuaeless as he is atthopre- sent time jtarraigned upon articlea of impeachment baaed upon acts 9f mal admimstration iu the removal of public officers. The result of the debate upon the bill for eatab- lishing the Executive De¬partraent of Foreign Affairs was tliat the phraae in question which made tho head of the department " removable frora office bv the Preaident of the United States" waa stricken out by a vote of 31 in the affirmative to 19 in the negative, and another form of ex- presaiou was introduced into tho aecond section. Which is Tiianifestly in harmony with the views oxpreaeed by Mr. Sherman, and those who entertained correspoudiug opinisufl. ^ , .. The secbnd sectibn iB in tnoae words :— ^'Section 2. And he it further enacted. That there shall be in the B.^id department au inferior officer, to bo ap pointed by the said principal officer, and to be employed therein as he shall deem proper, and to be called tho chief Clerk of the Departnient of Foreign Aflfairs. and who, whenever the said principal officer shall be removed from offico br tho Presidont of thb United States, or in other caee of vacancy, shall, during such yaeancy, have tbe charge and custody of all records, books and papers apper taining to said departuiout.'* (United Status Statutea at Large, vol. 1, p. 29.) It will bo seen that the phraae here employed, *''when>- cvcr tht) aaid principal officer ahall bo romored from office by the President of pha UnitedStatoa,'* isnot a grant of p(ywor to tbo Fresldwt; oor is i^ aa was aai^rted bj tb« counsel for the respondent, a legialative interpretation ofa conatitutional power. But it is merely a recognition of a power in the Conatitution to be exercised by the President, at some time, under sorae circu met an coe, and subject to certain limitatinus. But there ia no statement or declara tion of the time when such power -could bo exercised; the eircunietancea under which rt miglit be exerciaed, x^Tytha limitations impoaed upon ite exercise. All these mattera are left subject to the operation of tho Constitution. This is in entire, harmony with the decla- tion made bv Mr. White, of North Carolina, in tlie debato of 1789. He Baye;—, . ^ ^ •'Let u8 then leave tbe Constitution to a free operation, and let the President, with or without the conaent of the Senate, carry it into execution. Then, if any one euppoaea hiraaelf injured by the detennination let him have re course to the law, and ita deciaion will establish the true construction of the (.lonetitutiou." Mr. Gerrv, of Massachusetta, alao Baid;— , "Hence a'll conatruction of the meaning of the Constitu tion is dangeroua or unnatural, and therefore ought to be avoided. This is our doctrine, that no power of this k^nd ought to be exercised by the Legislature. But we eay, if we must give a construction to the Constitution it is moro natural to give the conatruction infavor of the nowerof removal vesting iu the President, by and with tbe, advice and consent of tho Senate ; because it ia in the nature of things that the power which appninta removes alao.'* ¦ Again, Mr. Sherman said, speaking of fhe words which were introduced into the first section and finally stricken out : — "I wiah, Mr. Chainnan, thslt tbe wor^s mJly be left out of the bin, without giving up the queation either way aS' to tlic proprietv of tlie meaBurc," The debate upon the bill relating to the Department fpr Foreign Affairs occurred in the month of June, 1796 ;iu the following month of August Congreas was engaged in ^jonaidering ^the bill eatabliahing the Treasiuy Department. This bill originated in the House, and coutained tho phraae uow found in It, being the,saitte aa that contained iu the biU establishing the istato Depart ment. The Senate was so far satisfied of the impolicy^of making any declaratidn whatever upon the subject ot removal, that the clause was atruck out by an amoudm^at. The House refused to concur, however, andthe, Senate, bv tlto casting vote of the Vice President, receded from tbe ameud ment. V All this ahowsthat tbe doctrine of the right of removal by the President survived the debate only as a limited and doubtful risht at moat. The reeulta reached by the CongresB of 1789 are concla- Bive upou the following points :~That that body waa of opinion that the power of reraoval waa not iu the Preai dent abeolutely, to be exerciaed at all timea and under all circumatancea: aud socondh'-, that during the aeiiBiona of the Senate the power of removal was vested in the Presi dent aud Senate, to be exerciaed by their concurrent action; while the debate and the votes indicate that the powerof thePresident to remove from office, during tJ^e vacation of the Senate, was, at best, a doubtful poww under the Constitutiou. It becomes ua next to consider the practice, of the Go vernment, under the Conatitution, aud in the presence Of the action of the first Congi-ess, by virtue of which the ' President uow clairas an absolute, unqualified, irreapoa- aible power over all public officers, and thie without the advice and couacut of the Seuate, or the concurrence of any otber branch of the Gpvernment. In the early ye^ra of tbe Govermnent theremoval of a public officer by the President w,as a rare ocdurrence, and it was iia'uaUy resort ed to during tho sesaion of the Senate, for misconduct ia office only, and accomplished hy the appointment ^a successor, through tho advice and consent of the' Senate. Gradually a practice was iutroducod, lai'gely through tbe example of Mr. Jefierson, of reiuovine otncers during tho recess of the Sonate, and filUng their places under com- miaaioha to expire at the end ot tbe next seaaion. Birt it cannot be said that thia Practice became comraon ualil the election of General Jackson, in 1828. During hie ad- minietration the practice of removing officers duiing the recesse'aof the Senate was largely increased, and la tba year 183S, on tbe 18th ot September, Geueral Jackaon rr moved Mr. Duane from the office of Secretary of ths Treasury. Thie act on hia part gave rise to a heated de bate in Congreas, and an ardent controversv throughout tho country, many of the moet eminent men conteudiag that there waa no power in tho President to removes civil officer, even during the recess of the Senate. Tho triuraph of General Jackson on that controversy gares full interpretation to the worda which bad been employed in the statute of 1789. But, at the same time, tbo limitations of that poww; iO the Preeident were clearly settled, both upon the law aad the Constitution, that wBatevor might be his power of rs- moval durmg a receaa of the Senate, be had no right to make a removal duripg a eession. of the Senate except ixvoa tho advice and coueent of that body to the appointment ta a Bucoeesor. This, wae the opiuion of Mr. Johnson himaelt as stated by bim in a speech made in the Senate on tba 10th of January, 1861;— "I meant that tbe truo way to fightitbe battle was for on to remain here and occupy tbeplaccs aasigned to us by tn# Constitution of -the countrv. Why did I make that atato- ment? It was becauao ou'tho 4th day of March next wo shall have six raaiority In thjs bodv, and If, aa eome apiffo- hended, the incoming admiuutration sballihow any diapor Bition to make enCroachiu^uta upon the inatitutiou of eUTOT^Fi enoroechdxtentti upca tbo rtebtfl of tbe Btoptus, or any IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 181 pther violation of the Constitution, we, by i*emaluing in the Union and standing at our places, will nave the power toreeiat all theae encroachments. How? We have the power even to reject tho appointment of the Cabiuet offi cers of the incoming President, Then, ehould we not be fighting the battle in the Union by reeiatiug evon tho or ganization of the administration in a constitutioual mode, and thua, at the very etart, disable an adniiniati'ation which waa likely to encroach on our righta and to violate the Conatitution ofthe country? ^o far aa appointiug even a minister abroad is concerned, the incoming adraiuistra- tion will have no power without our consent if wo remain hero. It comes into office handcuffed, powerless to do harm. We, standing hei:e, hold the balance of power in our hands: we can resist it at the very threshhold effec tuaUy, aud do it inside of tho Union and lu our House. The incoming administration has not even the power to apcoiut a postmaster, whoae ealary exceeda $1000 a year, without couBultation with, and the acquiceceuce of, the Senate ot the United States. The Preaident haa, not even the power to di'aw hif}Balary,.hia $25,000 per anuiiiUi unless we appropriate it.*'— (ConprefiSiOiiai Globe, vol. — § page — .) It may be well observed, that for the purpoae of this trial, and upon the question whether the Pre.-ideut is or is not euilty under the first three articlea exhibited against him by the Houae of Kepreaentatives, it ie of no conae quence whether the Prepidout of the United States has power to reraove a civil officer during a receaa. of the Se nate. The fact charged andproved againat the president, and on which, aa one fact proved againat him. we der maud hia couviction is, that he attempted to remove' Mr. Stantou from the office, of Secretary of War during a sesaiou of the Senato, It cannot be claimed with any ¦proRi^ety *^hat tbe act of 1789 can he construed aa a graut of power to the President to au extent beyond the practice of the government for three-quar tera of a century uuder tlie Conatitution, and under tlie provisions of the law of 1789. None ofthe prcdecesaora Of Mr. Johneon, from Gene ral Waebiugtou to Wr. Lincoln, although the act of 1789 was in existence during all that period, had over ventured to claim that either under that act, or by virtue of the Conatitution, the Presidentof the United Statea had power to remove a civil officer during a sesaion of the Senate, without ItB conseut and advice. The utmost that can be said ia, that for the last forty years it had beeu tho practice of the Executive to remove civil officers at pleasure during the receea of the Senate. While it may bc urged that thia practice, in the abaence of auy direct legialation upon the eubject had become the coramon law '.t the country, pro tecting the Executive in a policy correeponding to that practice: It is aleo trufc, for stronger reaeoue, that Mr. Johnaon was bound* byhis oath of office to adhere to the practice of hia predeceeeorS iu other particulara, none of whom had ever ventured to remove a civU officer from his office during the aeaaion of the Senate, aud appoint a auc- ccPEor, either permanent or ad interim, and authorize tbat successor to cuter upon the discharge of me dutiea of such oflice. , . ...... Hence it ia that the act of 1789 is no secuntv to this re spohdent, and hence it ig that we hold hiiu guilty ot a vio lation of the Conatitutiou and of hia oath of office. Under the first aud third articlea of irapeachraent, exhibited againat him by the Houee of Repreaentativea, aud thia ^^;ithout availing oiu'selvca of the proviaiona of the Tenure of Office act of March 2, 1867. I respectfully aak that the viewa now aubmitted in refer ence to the act of 1789 inay be coneideredin Connection with the argument I have already oiicred. upon the true meaning of the provisions of the Conatitutiou relating to the appointment of civil officera. I paes now to the consideration ^f the act of the 13th of February, 1795, on which the President relies aa a juatifi- cation for his appointment of Loreuzo Thomas as Secre tary of War ad interim. By thia act it ia provided t— "In caae of vacancy in the office of Secretary of Stato, the Secretary of the Treasury, or of the Secretaryof tho Dopartraent of "War, or of any other officer of either of tue said departmenta, whoae department ia not iu the head thereof, whereby they canuot perform the duties of their Baidrespectiveolficee, it ahallbe lawful for the Ifreaident of the Cnited Statea, lu case he shall think it neceesary, to authorize any person or peraons, at his discretion, to perform the duties of the said respective offices until a Bucceesor be appointed, or auch vacancy be filled. Pro vided^ That no one vacnucyBbtill bc supplied, iu manner aforesaid, for a longer term thau'aix months." f the atatute of 1795. The proviao or that etatute ¦declares that no ono vacancy ahall ue ahall be aupplied iu manner aforesaid (that is, by teraporary appointment) for a longer term than aix months. If the act of 1795 were in force, and if the President's theory of hie rights under the Constitution, and under that act were a valid theory, the six mouths during which the vacancy miehthave beeu sup plied teraporarily expired by limitation on the 12th day of February, 1868, and yet on tho Slflt day of Feb ruary, 1868, the Preaident appointed Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War ad interim to the same va cancy, aud thia in violation of the statute which he pleads his own defense. It is too clear for arguraent thaf if Mr. Stanton ivae lawfully suspended, as the Preai dent now clairaa, but not auapended uuder the Tenure of Office act,.then the eb-called reatoration of Mr. Stanton ou the 13th of January waa wholly illegal. But if the atatute of 1795 is applicable to a vacancy created by euapension or reraoval then the President liaa violated it by the appoint ment of Geueral Thomaa Secretary of War ad interim. And if the ntatute of 1795 is not applicable to a vacancy occaaioned by a removal, then the appointment of Geueral Thomaa Secretary of War ad interim is without authority or the color of authority of law. The fact IB, however, that the statute of 1795 is repealed by the operation of the etatute ofthe 20th of February, 1863. (StatutCB at Large, vol. 12, p. 656). If Senatora will consider tbe provisions of the statute of 1863 in connection with tho powerof removal uuder the Constitution during a session of the Seuate, by and with the advice and conaent of the Senate, and the theu recog nized power of removal by tbe Preeident during a recees of the Senate to be filled oy temporary appointmerita, as waa tho practice previoua to March 2, 1867, they will find that provision is made for every vacancy, which could pos sibly arise in the public service. The act of February 20, 1863, providea :— " That incuse of the dez,th, resignation, absence from the scat of government, or aicknesa of the head of au exe cutive dopartinent of the government, or of any officer of either of aaid departments whoae appointment is not in the head thereof, whereby theu cannat perform the du ties of tlieir respective omces, it ahaU be lawful for tho President of tho United States, In caae he shall think It necessary, to authorize the head of any other executive department or other officer in either oj said deparfmeuts whose appoiutffieut is vested in the Preaident, at his dis cretion to perform the duties of the aaid reapective offices .until a eucceeaor be appoiuted, or until such absence or In ability ehall ceaae? Provided, That no oue vacancy ahall be supplied in iuunner aforesaid for a longer term than six months." PiovIeIou was thus made by the act of 1B63 for filling ali Vacaucies which could occur under auy circumstances. It is a neceesary ri^lc of construction , tbat all previous Btatutes making other and difi'ereut proviaions fqr the fill ing of vacaucies are repealed by the operation.of more re cent statutes; aud for the plain reason that it ia incon-. Biatcut with any theory of governraent that there ahould be two legal raudes in exiatence at the eame tliue for doing the same thiug. ... , If the view I have presehfedbe a sound one, it Is ap parent that the Preeident'a couduct finds no aupport either m the Couetitution, iu the act of 1789, or iu the legislation of 1795, on which he chiefly relies aa a juatification for the appointment of Thomas aa Secretary of War ad intervm. It follows, ako, that if the Tenure of Office act had not been passed the Preaideut would uot have been guilty of a high miedemeanor, iu that he issued au order for the re moval of Mr. Stantou from office during tho seaaion of the Senate, iu violation of the Conatitution and of his own oath of otlice ; that he was guilty of ahighmiadenieauor in the appointment of Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim., and thia whether the act of the 13tn of February, 17.'i5, ia iu force, or whether the same has been repealed by the statute of 1863, or annulled and rendered obsolete by the intervening legislation ofthe country. His fuilt ia thus f ull v proved and eatabllahed aa charged iu the rst, second, and third articles of impeachment exhibited 182. IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. againat hira bv the House of Representativfesf and this without conaidering the- requirmenta or conatitiifionality of tlie act regulating the tenure of Certnin.civil offieee. ' I paaa now.to the consideration of Jthe Teuure of Office act. I preface what I have to aay bv calling your atten tion to that part of my argument already addresaed to you in which 1 haveeefc forth and maintained, aa 'I waa able, the opinion that the President bad no right to mak^'any inquiry whether an act,- of Congress Ib or ia not couBtitn- tiopal. That, having no right to make such iuquiny he couldnot plead that he had . so inquired, and reacned tbe concluaion that the act inquired about was unconstitn- tional; You will also bear in mind the views preeentcd, that this tribunal can take uo notice of any argument or suggeation that a wilfull violation by the President is un- coubtitutional. The gist of hia crime ia, that he intention ally disregarded a law, and, iu the nature of the caae, it Cftu beno excuse or defense that such law, in hie opinion, or in the opiuion of othera, wae uot iu conforraity with the Conatitution. In this connection, I desire to call yonr attention to aug geations made bythe Pivsidenc, and by the. President's counsel— by the President iu his mesaage of December, l8d7, and bythe Prerideut's couuael iu his opening argu- inout— that it Congre-o were by legialation to abolibh a de- Sartment of the goverument, or to declan-e that the Pre?i- cnt should not he Comraander-in-Chief of the array or the navy, that itwould be the, dutv of thePreuideutto diare- gard euch legislation, .•'^'heee are extrerae cases, aud uot within the range of poesibility. Members of Cou^re'a are individually bound by an oath to support the Conatitution of the Uuited Statoa, and it ie uot to be pi^eaunied, eveu for the purpose of argument, that they would wantonly dipi^e- gai'd the obligatious.of their. oath, and enact in the forra of law rulea or proceedings in plain violation of the Constitu tion. SucIlis not the couree of legislatiou, and such is not ^lo character of ithe act- we . are now to consider. the tenure of certain civil The, bill regulating oflices waa .paeseds DJ each of the two Hoii^ee, aud it ie to be presumed that each Senator aud Repreaentativc who gave it hia sup port did jjo inthe helieEtllat its pi'Ovieions were in har mony with the provisions fof '' the Constitutiou. We aro now deiiling with practical affaire, and conducting the go- yerniuent withiu the Conatitutiou; and in reference to measures passed by Congreas under auch circum atahcee; it ia wholly indefensible lor tho. Preaident to euggeat the course that, In his opinion, he would be ouatificd in pursu ing if Congreee were openly and wantonly to dierogard the ConBtitution and inaugurate revolution In the govern- meni , , . . Itia aaeerted by the couuael for the; President, thathe took advice aa to the constitutionality of the Tenureof Office act, aud -being of opinion that itwas unconstitu tional, or so ranch of it at., least aa atterapted to deprive him ot the povydr of removing the rapiubers pf the Cabinet,; he felt it to be hie dutyto disi-Qga'rd ita proviijions ; and the qucCtion ia uow put With feeling and emphuaia, whether the President ia to be impeached, convicted aud re- liioved from office for a mere ditferenco of opinion* True, the Preaideut ie not to be ' removed for a, mere dinerence of opinion. If he had contented himaelf with the opiuion that the law ^way uncouatitutioniU, or even with the oxpreaslon of euchan opiuion privaiely or o'ffi'ciEtllj' to Coli'greae, no exception' could have been taken- to his couduct. But he has attempted to act In aceordanoei with that opinion, and iu'that actiou he has dieregaidud the reqflirementa of the statute. It ia for thia action thnt he ie to be arraigned, and i« to be convicted. ' Bu't it is not neccB'ary for us to rest upou the docti^iue that it was the duty of the PreBident to accept tlrt law aa cou stit utiQUal.' and govern himaelf accordingly ih all hia official doings^ "We are lirdpared' to'ahow that the law ia in truth iu har-, mony With the Constitution, and that its provisioua apply to Mr, Statnton' aB Secretary for the Department of War,^, The Tenure Of Office act makCB no change iu the powers of the President and theSenate, during the session of the^ Senate, to remove a ciyil officer upon a noraination by the Preaident, and, confirraation by the Senate, of a successor. This waa au admitted conatitutional power froin the very OTsanization of ^he g'overhrneut, while the right now- cliiiuied by the President to remove a civil officer during a sespion of the Seuate, without the advice and conaent pf the Senate, was never aaserted by any of hia predecessors, aud certainly never recognized by any law or by auy practice. Thia rule applied to heads of departments aewijU. aato other civil officers. Indeed, it raaybe aaid,once for all," that the tenure by, which membere' of the Cifbinet have hold their placea correi^ponda iU every particular to the tenure b.v which other civu officera have held theirs. It ie uudoubtedly true that, in practice, raembera of the Cabi net ha^e been accustoraed tb tfeiider their roslgnatldna upon a au!;ge8tion from the Preeident that auchacourao would be acceptable t* him. But thia practice has never cliauped their legal relations to the Preaideut or to the couutiy. There was never a moraent of time, elhce the ^adoption 01 the Coubtitution, when the law or the opinfpu of the Senate recoguized the right of thePresident to remove' a Cabiuet olucer duHng a searioU of.the Senate, without the' conseut of tho Senato given through the confirraation of a eucceaeor* Henoe. iu thia particular, tho Tenure of Oflice act merely enacted andgave form to a practice exiating frora the toundatiou of the government— a practice in' en tire harmony ^^ith the proviaiona of the Constitution upon the subject. ¦ the chief change produced by the Teuure of Onice act had renereuce to reraovale during the '' receea of the Senate. Previous to the 2d of March, 1867. as haa been already shown, it was tbe practice of the President duriug' tfierecess of theSenate to reraove Ci'^'Il officers and to grant commiBaldUP to other persohStUnder the third clHuae ofthe second eectlou of the aecond article of.the Consti tution. This bower, as hae been eeen, \^^'aa a doubtful oue in the beginning. The practice grew up under the . act of 1789, but the right of CougreeB by legislation to regulate the exerciae of that power wae not' questioned in the great debate of that year, nor can it reasonably be drawn into coutroversy now. >, .^ .i. t, ., i The act of March ^2, 1867, declares that the President shall not exerciee the power of removal', absolutely, during the receee of the Seuate, but that if any officer shall be ahown, by evidence eatlsfactory to the Preaident, to b^ guilty of miecpnduct In office, otftjof crirae, or lor any reason ahftll bpcome Incapable or.legally disQualiUed td perform hia duties, the Preaident may suapend, him from office atid' designate aorae Suitable person to perform tem porarily th6 dutiee of auch office until the next meeting of, the Senate and the actiou of th6 Senate thereon. , „ ^- By thia legislatiou the removal ia qualified, and ij made subject to the final action of the Senate, instead of bem^ abadlutej as was the fact under- the practice, theretofore prevailing. It is to be observed, however, that thia fea* tUre of the aet regulating the tenure of certain civil office^ la not drawn into controversy "by these proceedinga; and: therefore, it is entirely .uuituportant to the Preaiident whether that provisiou of the act is conatitutional or not! I can, howeverj entertain no doubt of ita couatitutiouality: The record of the case, howeViA-, BhOws that Mr. Stanton .was suapended frora office -dliriU^ the' recces, but waa rei moved from office, as far as an bi-der of the' President could effect hiB removal, during a session pf. th0 Senatffi It is alao wholly iramaterial to the preseut iWaiti^-y wheth^ the auspeualon of Mi*. Stanton on the lath of August, 186w was made under the Tenure of Office act, or in disregard to it, as the Prpaident asserta; , , ' It being thus clear, that so much of the act aa rcZates to atpoiutmenta und removals from otfice duriugthe acesioii ?i the Senate ia in harinofiy with the practict^ of the go- ernuicnt from the first, and in harmonv with the provi sionB of the ConBtltutipn on which that practice was based, audit being admitted thatthe order of. tlie Preaideut for the reinoval of Mr. Stanton was ieeued during a sesaion of the Senate, it is unnt'ceesary to inquire wbetlier the other parts of the act are conatitutional or uot, aud also unhe- cesaary to inquire what the provisions of the act are in reference to the beads of the sevcrn-l execu.tive depart-, menta, I preaume authorities are not needed to show that a law may be iinoonStitutioUal and void in sorae of ita , parts, and the rehiaining portion's eohtiuue in ffill force. The body of the first section of the act regulating the tenure of certain civil officea iain thet^e woi'ds;— "Every pejaoaJiolding any civil office tb>^'iiichhe has been appointednby -and with the advice and consent of ttiff Senate, aud evervpi'^'^fofi who ehall hereafter be apppinte^ to any suph office, aji'd ehall become duly quajifijed to act; therein, ia, and t'liaAi he entitled to hold euen -office until a^ EfiTcccariorshifU' **flvebeen in like manner appointed and duly qualified, except ae herein otherwise nrovided." 'Omitting for the moraent to notice the exception, t ere, can he Uo doubt that this proviaiou -would have applied to tbe SocriyfSry bf War^ and to every other civil ofiicer under' the gMfflgrnment: norican there be any doubt th.at there. mojjBlibf Mr. Stanton\.during a sedsion of the -Senate ia a, i^l'raeanor "by the laW, and puUiah-iblo as such uiider, wile sixth sectiou of tbi^act, unless tho body of the,,sectipn quoted ia ao controlled by>the proviao aa to take tbiiSecre-, tary of War but of its grasp. The proviso Is in theee wpi'ds:— ¦ > ¦ ' " That the Sccretavde^ of State , of War, of the Naw, andt of tlje Iuterior,.the Ps'StinSster'Uenei'tU'aDd tho Attornoy- Geueral shall hold'thMrdfficea respectively for and during, the terra of the Pnesid^t by whora they may have beeh appointed, and one month thereafter, subject to removal' by and wim the advice and Conaent of the oenate." We maiutain that Mj:. -Stanton, as Secretary of War,' wae, ou the aecond day of Miirch, ISoV, within and iucludedr under the Ik^uguagp of the'.'proviso, and 'w^s to hold hifl, office for and during the term of th** I'resident by whom he had been appointed, and one month thereafter, subject to removal, however, by and with the advice ^and conaent of the Senate. WeJtoamtain that Mr.Staufebn was theu holding the office of Secretary of War, for aud iu the term of Preeident Lincoln,' by whom he had been ap poiuted; that the terra cortimenced ou the fourth of March, 1865, and would end ou th« fourth of March, 1869. Tho Constitution defines the meaning of thOi ^¦'9i"4 "Jerm." VVhen-speaking of the PreBident, it Bj^ya: -"He shall hold his office during the term of four f years, aud, together with the Vice Preaidont, choaen for the sarae term,bc,clected ae followa, Now, then, although tlio Preaident firat elected may die during shia term, the office and the term ot tho office still i^emaiu. .Having been - ee.tablwhed by the Constitution, ,it is pot in any degreo dependeut upon, the circimiBtauce whether the peraon i elected to the terra ahall survive to the eud or not, It'is r atill a Presidential terra. It ia still in law the term of tbe ' Preaideut who waa elected to the otlice. The Vibe Preai-, f dent w$8 choaen at the aame timo aud elected for the same , JemV' ButJtis the term of a diiferent office from thatof ;; rreeidQnt-the term of the office of Vice President. Mr, i Johuaou was elected to the ofjjco of Vice President for tfho ^ torm of .four years. Mr. Lincoln was elected to the offico ¦ of Preeident fqr tho terra of four yeara. l\lr. Lincoln died ' ^^ fP'^j second liiontn o± his teriu, aud Mr, Johnaon suc ceeded to the olhce. It wad nnt a ne^v office, it,was hot a new term. He suc ceeded to Mr. Lincoln's, offico, aud for the remainder of Mr, Liucoln^e term of btnce. He is serving out Mr Lin- IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON^ 18S fi cpln'a term aq PVeaideut. The Iww says that the Secreta riea t-hii.ll hnld their offices reepectively -for and during the. toi'm of tbo if'realdeut by whom they may have' been ap- ii'inted. Mr. Lijucolu's term commenced on the :4th- of d.irch, 1866. Mr. Stauton was apuoiutod bv* Mr. Lincoln; ho waa m officein Mr. Lincoliuis term, when the act regu lating tho teuiu'e of certain ciVil officea was passed i aud by tlie proviso of that act he was entitled to hold that office- until one mouth after thu 4th of March, 1869, unleaB he. ehouidbeBooner removed therefrom, by and With the ad vice and conaent ofthe Seuate. The actof Meirohl^ 17^, concorningrthe succeasiCn, in caBctheofficej of Preeident . and Vice preaident Doth be came vacant, recoguiaes' the preaidoutial terin- of fOur years, aa the constitutional term. Any one can underatand wiat iu caae of vacancy in the office of Preaideut and Vice Bresident, anil in caae of a new election by the people, t}iait it.would be deelrablcto make the election for the re mainder of the term. But the act of 1792 recognizee the impo-!i*ibIlity of this course iu the aection which provides' that the term»of four yeara for which a President aud Vic6 Pre'udcut Bhall be elected (thatia, iu case ofa new elec tion, aa stated,) ahall Iuall caaee commence on the fourth day of March next aUcceedIng the day on which the votcff of tho eloctora^holl hav-o -been given. It ia thus aeon that by au election to fill a vacancy tho goverument would be ao tar changedin ita practical Avork- mg that the aubsoqueut electioas ef PreaidonLexcept by an' amendment to tho Conatitution, could never again occur in the years invisible by four, aa at present, and might not ansvver to the eJlection of membere of the House of llepre- sentatives, for the Presidential elections miglit occur in the yeara not divisible by two. The Congress nf 1792 acted upon the constitutional doctrine that the Presidential term is four years and caflnot ba changed by law. Ou the -2lB(i of February, 1868, wb^e the Seuate of the Ij'ulted. States was in sesBion,~Mri. Johusonrim violatiou of the law— which, aa we have alreadv seen, ia In a^ict harmony in- thie partioular with the Constitu tion and with the practice of every government— iaaued an. order for the removal of Mr. Stauton from his of fice as Secretary for tho Departmeut of War, If, however, it. be claimed that.the proviso deea not apply to the Secre- . tary of War, then he does not come withiu the only excep tion made in the statute to the general provisiou in tbe body of the first sectiun already quoted: aud Mr.Stantou having been appointed to office originally by and with the' advice and conseut of the Senate, could ouly bo reraoved bv the nominatiou and appointment of a auccesaor, by and" with the advice aud coneent of theSenate. Hence,, upod' either theory it is plain that the Preaident violated the Tenure of wffice act in the order which he Iaaued on the Slat day of February, A; D; 1868,' for the. reihoval of( Mr, Stauton from theoffice of Secretary for the Department of War, the Senate of the United Statea being then in eeasion. Iu support of the view I have preaented. I refer to the official record of the amendiuenta made to the firat eectiou ot tho tenure oif otfice act. On tho 18th of January, 1867, tho bill passed the Senate, and the firat section thereof was intheae words: '- - '¦ " That every peraon [excepting the Secretaries of State, of the Trcasurv, of War,- of the S avy, and bf the Interior, the. Postraaster Grcueral, and the Attomey General] hold ing any civil office to which ho haa beeu appoiuted by and with the advice aud conseut of the Senate, and every per son who ahall hereafter bo appointed to any auch office,- and ahlill become duly qualifled to act thereiu, is aud ehall be entitled to hold such office until a succeasor ahall have. beenpin like manner appoiuted and .duly" qualiiied,.'except asherein otherwise provided." '¦ . ' On the eeeond day bf Febi^uary, the House pasaed the bill with an amendment striking out the words incPided in brackets. This action ahowsthat it waa the purpoae of the Houf-e to include heads of departuientain the taod_.r of the bill, aud suhject them to ita provisions aa civil officers who were to hold theirpjacee hy and with the advice and cntiyCnt of 'the Senate, and aubject, duriug the se.J^on of the Senate, to removal by and \^ ith the advice aqd cou eent of tho Senate only; but subject to silepension under tho second section during a recess of th(i Benate ttB othur civil oificers, bv virtue of tho words at the clore of the aectlon, "except as herein otherwise provi-' ded." At the time the bill waa pending between the two Housea, .there was no proviao to the rir-- from Ohio, who . reported the result of tho conference to the Senate, justify the inference which haa been drawn from it bythe counael forthe respondent. The charge' raade by the honorable Senator frora Wiaconain, which the honorable Senator from Ohio waa refuting, aeems to- rae to have been In aubstance, thait the firat aection of the' bill and the proviao to the firat section of the bill had been franied with apecial reference to Mr.i Johnaon aa President, and to the existing coudiuon of affaire. In reepouae to thia, the'houOrable Seuator frora Ohio eaid:'~ '"leay that the Senate have not legislated With a view to any persone or any Preaideut, and therefore he com mences by aeeerting what Ie not true. We do not legislate iu ordertokeep in the Secretary of War, theSecretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of State." 'It will be obeerved that this; language doea not in dicate the opiuiou ofthe honorable Senator aa io tke, eficct of the. bill; but it is ohlv a declaratioi* that the object of the , legwlaticm was ilbt that which had, boon intimated or alleged by the' honorable Senator from Wisconsin. TIij^j view of the remarka of the honor-- able Senator from OtnP is confirmed by what he afier- warda-aaid iu reply to the suggeation that the n. e abers of ' the Cabiuet would hold their placea againat the wi:-hea of thePreaident, when he declares that under such circuiu- etancee, he, ae a Senator, would consent to theit" vtynoval at a^ny time, showiug moat clearly that he did not enter tain the idea that, under the Tenure of Otfice act, it would be in the power of the Preeident to remove a Cabiuet oth- cer without the advice and conseutof the Senate. And W$ all agree that, in ordinary' times and under ordi nary circumetaucea, it would be juet and prdj;ier for a Cabinet offlcer to tender hie reaignation at once, upon the auggestlou cff the Preaident that it would bc accejitaDlc, b.it that it would be the height of personal aud official inde- ' corum if he were to hesitate for a moraent aa to hia duty in that particular. But the juetifleatlon of Mr. Stantou, and hia claim to the gratitude and the encoraiuraa of hia countrymen, ie, that when the nation was iraperilled by' the uaurpjitions ot a criminally- rainded Chief Masidtrate, ' he assorted hia constitutional and leeal rights to theoffice of ScGrctary for the Depiirtraent of War, and thus, by his devotion to principle, and at great peraonal sacrificea, ho ' hAs done more than ony otherman since the cloae ofthe Rehellion to protect the interesta aud maintain the rights ofthe people ofthe country. But the atrength of the viewwe entertain of the mean ing and acnpe of the Tenure of Offifce act is nowher^ mora satlaf'actbrilv demonstrated than iu tlie iUconsiateqcIee of the argument which, has been pi-cscuted by^the learned counsel for the re^-'pondent in support of tftie PreeidcUt's (pofiitiona. He aaye, speaking ofthe first section of the' abt 184 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. regulatlngthe tenureof certain civil offices :— "Here is a section, then, the body of which applies to all civil officers, as well to those thon in office aa to tnoae who.should there after be appointed. The ^body of this secnon containa a \ a declaration that every auch officer ^is,' that < is, if heia now in office, and 'shall be,' that is. If he shall hereafter be appoiuted to office^ entitled to hold until asucceaeor is appoiuted and qualified in his place. Thia is the body ofthe section." Tbis language of the eminent counaelis not only au admission, but it la a declaratidn that the Sec retary forr the D^partm^nt of War,' being a civil officer, as is elsewhere admitted in the arguraent of the counsel for -the respondent, is included in and covered and con troUed DV the language of the body of this section. It is a further admission' that iu the absence of the proviao, the i>ower of the Preaident over the Secre tary for the Department of War would correspond exactly to bia power over any other ci^l officer, which would be merely thepower to nominate asucceason whose confirmation by the Senate, and appointraent. would work the removal of the pereon in office. When tbe counsel for the reapondent, procceeding in his argu ment, enters upou an examination of the proviso, he main tains that the language of that proviao doea not include the Secretary for the Department of War. If he ia not in cluded In the language of the proviao, then, upon the ad-. miasion of the counsel, be ia included in the body of tbe bill,;ao that for the purposes or thia investigatiou and trial , .1 office, body of the section expreaaed, until removed therefepm by and with the advice and coneent of the Senate. W he is covered . by the language of the proviao, then a limltatlou is fixed to hia office, to wit:— That it ia to expire oue month after the cloae of the term of the President by whom he haa beeu appoiuted, subject, however, to pre vious removal by and with the advice and coment of tbe Senate. I have already considered the queation of intent on the part of tlie Preaideut and maintained tbat iu the willful idolation of the law he diecloaes a criminal iutent which cannot be controlled or qualified by any testimony ou the part df the respondent. The counael for the respondemt, however, has dwelt so much at length ou the question of intent, and such efforts have been made during the trial to introduce testiraony upon this point, that I ara justified in recurring to it for a brief consideration of tbe arguraents and views bearing upou aud relating to that question. If a law passed by C\jugree3 bu equivocal or ambiguoua in ita term.'j, the Exe cutive, being caUcd upon to administer it, may apply his own best judgraent to the dilficultiea before him, or bo may seek counsel from his official advers or other proper pei'aous; and actiug thereupon, with out evil intent or purpose, lie would be fully justified, and upon no - principle of right could ho toe held to answer ae for a raisdumeanor 19 olfiee, But that is uot thia ease. The queetioi^conaidered by Mr. Johnsou did not relate to the .meaning of thu Tenureof Otlice act. He understood perfectly well the iutoution of Cougreaa, andhe admitted iu hia veto measage that the intention was expreesed with aufficieut clearness to enable him to comprehend and state it. In his veto raessage of the 2d of March, 1867, after quoting the firet section of the bill to re gulate the teuure of certain civil offices, he says:— *Tu effect tho bill providea that the President shall not reraove from their placea any civil oMaers whoae terma of flervice are not liraited by law without the advice and con sent of the Senate of the United states. The bill, in this respect, couflicte, in my judgment, witb the Conatitution ofthe Uuited States." Hia statement of the meaning of the bill relatea to all civil officere, to the merabere of his Cabinet aa well as to otferB, and is a declaration _ that, under that bill If it he came alaw-j none ol these officers could bo reraoved with out the advice aud conaent of the Senate. He waa, there fore, m no doubt aa to the intention of Congress as ox- preeaed in tbe biU subraitted to hira for his coneideratiou, smd'which afterwards became the law of the laud. Ho said to tho Senate, "Tf you pass thia bill I cannot remove the membere of my Cabinet." The Senate and House iu etfect said. "We do so intend," and paeaed the bill by a two-thirds majority. There waa then no miaunderatanding as to the meaning 01' iutentioa of the act. Hia offense, then, is not that upou an examination of tho statute he miaunderatood its mean ing and acted upon a miaiaterpretation of ita true Impdrt^ but th^t understanding Its meaaing preciaely as it ia under stood by the Congress that paeaed the lavv ; precleely as it ia understood by the Houae of liepreaentativea to-day ; pre cisely aa it ia presented iu the articliis of impeachmeut, and by the managers before thia Senate, ho, iipon hia owu opiuion that the sarao \y&a unuonBtitiitioual, dellberatelv, wilfully and intentionally diaregarded it. The learned couuael say that ho had a right to violate , thia law for the purpose of obtaining a judicial doteriuiuution. This we deny. The conatitutional duty of.the President ia tc obey and executo^he laws. He haa no authority under the ConBtitution, or by any law, to enter into auy schemes or plana for the purpose of testing the validity ol the laws of the country, either judicially or otherwido, JBverv law of Congrese may be decided lu tbe court's, but it la not niadij the duty of any pereon to so test the law. It is not specially the right of any peraon to so teat the laws, and thecnortis especiftUy offensive in the Chief Magistrate of the couutry to attempt by any proccaa to annul, ect aeldo, or defeat tho laws which by bia oath be ia bound to exe cute. Nor is it any anawerto pay, aa fs auggeated by the coun- sri for tbe reapondent. that" there never could be a judi. cial decifilon that a law ia unconstitutiunal, inasmuch as it ' is only by diaregording a law that any question can be raised judicially nnder it." If this be true, it is no misfor tune. But theoppoeite theory^ that it Is the duty cr tho right of the president tn disregard a law for the purpose of aacertaining judiciially whether be has a right to violate a law ia abhorrent to every just principle of government. and dangeroua to the highest degree to the existence of free inetitutions. _. . ^. 1 , it. ' ^ 4, But bis^alleged purpose to test the law in the courts la shown to be a pretext merely. Upon tbia theory of his righte, he could nave instituted proceedings by informal" tiou in the nature of a quo wa/rranto against Mr. Stantou on the 13th of Jauuary, 1868. More than three months bave pasaed, and he hae done nothing wha^ver. Whett by Mr. Stanton's- action Lorenzo Thomaa was under orreafi^ aud proceedinga were instituted which might have tested tbe legality of the tenure of office act, Mr. Cox, the Presi* dent's special counsel, mov6d to have the proceedings di^ missed, although Thomas was at large upon bia own re- cognizaucet Can anybody believe that it waB Mr. Johneon^g purpose to test the act in tbe courts ? But the respondest's lUBincerity, his duplicity, ia ahown by the statement which he mado to Gen. Sherman in Jauuary last. Sherman aaysj "I asked him why lawyers could not m ake a case, and not bring me, or any ofiicer, into tbe controverey? Hia answer waa 'that it was found imposflible, or a case could not be made up ;' 'but,' said he, 'if we can bring the case to the courts, it wouldnot stand half an hour."* Henowisaya bis object waa to teat the caae in tho courta. Tofihenuaa he declarea that a caae could not be made up, butif one. could be made up the law would not stand half ah bour. When a caae was inade up which might have tested the law, he makes haste to get it dismissed. Did ever, auda^ city aud duplicity more clearly appear in the excuses of a criminal? . ,. . i This brief argument upon the question of intent seems to. me conclusive, out I ahall incidentally refer to the evideood on thia point in the further progress of myremarks. The House of Representativea 'does not demand thecon- viction of Andrew Johnsou unless he is guilty lu the luaa- ner charged in the articles of impeachmeut ; nor doi^ the Houae exp3ct the managers to seek a. conviction- except upon tbe law and facta considered with judicial impiir- tiality. But I am obliged to declare that I h*ve no capa city to understand thoae processe? of the huniaji mmd tiy , which thia tribunal, or any member of this tribunal, caa ' doubt, can entertain a reasonable doubt, that Andi'enr Johnson ia guilty of bigh miedemeanor in otuce, as charged iu each of the firat three articles exhibiitedagauiut bim by the House of Representatives, We have charged aud proved that Andrew Johnson, President of the Uuited Statea, iaaued an order,iu writiufj', forthe reraoval of Edwin M. Stanton frora the offico ot Secretary for the Department of War while the Sonate of the Uuited States waa in seaaion, and without the advica aud consent of tho Senate, iu violatiou of the Couatitutina of tbe United Statea and of hia oath of office, andof the provisionB of an act paaaed March 2; 1867, entitled, ^'aa act regulaCiug the tenure of certain civilotbcea," andthat he did thie with intent so to do; and thercujion, we demand bis conviction under the first of the articles ot impeach meut exhibited against liim by the House of Repreaonta- tives. . ¦ , , We have charged and proved that Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, violated the Constitution aud his oath of office, in issuihg an order for the removal of lid\i'in M. Stauton from tho office of Secretary for tbo Departraent of War, during the session of the Seuate, and without the advieo and couacut of the Senate, aud this without reference to the Teuure of Office act; and there upon we demand his couviction under tbe iirst articlea of impeachment exhibited against bim by tho Houee of fi&- presen tatives, ^ We havo Charged and proved that Andrew JohnKffl» PreBident of the Uuited States, did Ipsue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thoraaa, a letter of authority in writing, <-author« izing aud empowering aaid Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interi7n, there beiug no vacancy In aaid otfice, aud this while the Senate of the United Statea waa iu see- eiou, aud without the advlcc'ahd consent of the Scnate,.in violatiou of the (Jouatitutiou of the United States, of hlB oath of office, aud of tlie proviaiona of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil officea," and all thiB with the Intent so to do; and, thereupon, we demand hiB couvictiou under the second of the articles of impeach ment exhibited against him by the House of .Kepreseata* tives. We havo chargea aud proved that Andre w|Johnflon, Pre sident ofthe UnitedStatoa, in the appoiutmeut of Lorenzo Thoraas to the office of Secretary 01 war ad interim acted without authority of law, and in violation ofthe Conatitii- tion and of bis oath of office ; and this without reference to theTeuuteof Officcact; and thereupon we demaud hu conviction uuder the third of the artli^ea of impuachuicut exhibited againat him by tbe Houbc of Repreaeutatives. At tour o'clock Mr. Boutwell, at the suggestion of Mr. CONKLING, yielded to a motion to adjourn the court Bta^ iog that ue would occupy about an hour and a half to-mor< row, aud accordingly tbo court adjourned. IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 185 PROCEEDINGS OF TMU'RSDAY, APRIL 23. The Senate reassembled at 11 o'clock, and the court was opened in the usual fornu , , , , Mr. GRIMES submitted tbe follo*inff :— ¦ Ordered, Tbat hereafter the] hdi?r for the,nieetinff of.the Senate, sitting on the trial of the impeach ment of Andrew JoHnsbn,* President of the UiiUed 6f;a(e@, eball be 12 o'clock meridian each day, except Sunday, Hi*. SUMNER and several others objected, and the order was laid over, ,¦ At 11*20 o'clock Mr. BOUTWEtL resumed his ad- ttfldress. > . Tbe leamed counsel for the respondeut seems to have involved himaelf iu Bome difficulty concer'hing the arfjtiles which he terma the,conapli'acy articles, being articlea fdur, flve, SIX and aeven. Thfe allegations contained iu articles four and six aro laid under the.act of July SI, 1861, known as the conapiracy act. Tiie remarks of the learned c6uu- ^til seem to imply that articles five audi seven were not Based upon any law 'ivhatever. In this he greatly errs. An examination of drtlcles four andfive shows that the substantive allegation Is the same in each artl^cle, the dif • fertenceB being that article four chargea the conspiracy, With intent, by intimidation and threata, unlawfully to hinder aud proVeut Edwin M. Stantou from holding the office of Secretary for the Departmeut of War. 'i'he per eons charged are the re8p[ondent and Lorenzo Thpmas. And itia alleged that this cobapiracy, for the purpoae aet forth, was in violation of the Conatitution of the United' Statea, and of the proviBiohs of au act entitled ''An act to Junlah certain conapiraclea," approved July 31', 1661. ' 'Thd fifth article cnargee that; the rcBpohdent did unlaw fully conspire with , one Lorenzo Thomas, aud with other persbu^ to prevent the execution of the act eutitled *' Au act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," and that In purauance of that conspiracv, thev did unlawfully at tempt to prevent Edwin Iff. Stauton,frora holding the office Of Secretary for the Department of War. It is' nbt al leged In the article that thia conapiracy is agaiust any par ticular law, but itis alleged that the p!%rties charged did unliawfully conepire. It is very wellknown that 'conspira cies are ot two kinds. Two or more persona may consDh-e todo alawfid act by unlawful means; or two or more peraons may conapire to du an unlawful act by^ laviful means. By tho common law of Eugland auch couapl-' raciea have always beeu indictable and puniahablc as- miademeanori*. •Tl^e-State of Maryland was one of the original thirteen States of the Uuion, and the common law of^ England liaa always prevailed iu that State, except eo far ua it has beeh modified by etatute. The city or Waehington was originally withiu the State of Maryland,but it was ceded to the Uuzt6d Statea uuder the proviaiona of the Con stitution. By.a atatute of tbe United States, paased Feb ruarv 37, 1801 (Statutes at iLarge, voL ^, p. 103), it ia pro- vMed :— ¦ VThat the laws of the State of Maryland, aa they now exist, sh^U be aud continue in force in that part ot the said' giBtrict ' which was ceded by that State to tbe United tates, and bv them accepted as afroeaaid." By force of this atatute, although probably the Jaw would bave been the aame without legislatiou, the Euglish cora-: mon law of crimes prevaila iu tlio city of Waslungton. By another statute, entitled "Au act for the punishment of orimes iu the District of Columbia," "Statutes at Large, vol. 4, jiage 450), approved March 2, 1831, special punish ments are affixed to various crimes enuraerated, wtmn compiitted in the District of Columbia. But conspiracy is not one of the'crlmes mentioned. . The fifteenth section of tbat act provides :— ¦; . i "That every other felony, misdemeanor, or offenae, not providedforDythiaactjmay,;, and -shall be pupiahed aB neretofore, except that in all caaes where whipping is.part. or the whole of t&epunishinent,< OKcepti iu ' tne caace .of slayea, the court ahall aiibatitute there tor impriaoumeut in the county jail, for .a period not exceeding six months," , Andthe aixteeiuth aection declares:-^ "That all definitiona aud descriptiona of crimes,; all fines, foifeitures, and incapacitiea, the restitution of property, ¦ or the payment pf , tqe value thereof, taud every other mat ter not provided for in this act, be and the same fihall re main as heretofore*" . ,-,;,¦.. ; . , , , There can then be no doubt that, under the. English com- mojilawof crimes, Banctioned and continued/ by the sta- Wtea of the United States iu the Dwtrict of . Columbia, the fifth and seventh articles set forth offenees which are pun ishable as miademeanors by the laws pf the District; Article sixth irf laid under the statute of 1861, and charges' that the respondent did unlawfully conspire with Lorenzo Thomas, bv force to seize, take and possess the property of the United States in tbe Department of War. and this withintent to violate and disregard the act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil officea." The words used in the Couepiracy! act of 1861 le£|-ve room for argument upon the point raised bythe learned couuael for the reapondent, I admit that the District of Columbia isnot mcluded by specific designation, but, the reasona for th« law and the natural interpretation of the languaige Juetl/yi the view that the act apphes to the Diatrict. I shall, re^r, to a siiigle authority upou tJiat poij^t. 18 The internal du^ea , act of , Auguat 2i,18>3,, {Stafe„,v«l& p. 82) subjects, iu express , terma, the "aeveral Territories of theUuited Statea and the .District of Cljluinbla," to the payment of taxes Irapoeed j. upon which the question arose wtip^her. Congrees has power to irapose a direct tax on tho District of Columbia, in view of the fact that by the Cou Btitution "repreaentation and du'ect taxes shall bc appor tioned am,oiig tho ^veral titatee which raay be Included withiu the Uulou, according to theh* respective uumbers.'i ¦ In the caae -of Loughborough ve. Blake, the Supreme Court of the United btatea unanlmouely dccidi?d, in a bi'ief hut well written opinion .by Chief Juatice Marahalli that although the language of tbe Coustltutlou app»; rently excepta the Diatrict of Columbia, from the impoai-r tioh of du-eot taxes, vet tho reaaou of the thing requires us to conaider the District ae being comprehended, in this reapect withiu the iuteuijou of the CpuBtitutiou.. (Lough, va. lHake,,5\yhea,ton, p.,3}7. , . The reasoning of,, the Supreme Court and ita conclualbq in thlacaae.werejpatisfactory to the bar aijd the countiyi aud no ppreou haa deemed it worth while, to raise the Question anew, under the direct tax aCt of August 5, 18t3L ($ts. xii., 296), which also comprehends the Terntorica aiid Jbo District of Columbia., „:, T . ' , - ? But the l.tgicaj rulea of conatruction applicable to an act pfCongi-esB aj's the aarae aa thoae applicable to the Con stitutiou. An act of ^ougress and the Constitution aw both lawa, nothing mo^e. nothiug less, except that thelaii ter ia uf euperior authority. And, if iu the construction of the Constitution, it uiay, be eatisfactorily maintained that the .District of (Columbia ia to be deeraed, becauee of the reason, of thiuga, to be coraprehended by a provisiou of the Constitutiou, whicl^ iu worde, aud iu their superficial conr. struction, excludes it, raust uot the same rule of cout^tru^p.. tiou produce the same result inthe determination of the legarintent and import. ^f an actof Consreaa, wheA on ob scurity e-^Iats iu the latter tor the same cause? , > j ^he aeventh article- ia laid upon the common law, and charges aubatantidlly the aame offenses aa thoae charged in the sixth article. The reault, then, ia that the fifth and seventh articlea, which are baaed upon tho common law, set forth substautially the aarae offenaea which are aot forth In the fourth and sixth articlea, which are laid upon, the atatute of July 31, 1861; audias there can be no douht of the validity of the fifth aud seventh artlcles,.it Is prac tically immaterial whether the auggeatiou raade by thei counsel for the reapondent, that the conapiracy act of 1831 doesuot Include the District of Colurabia, aaavalldob- jectlpu or not.,! ^{ot doubting that the Senate will fin^ that the cuargo of conapiracy ia suiftcieutly laid under existing laws, I prQ(:eed to. an exaraination o£ the evidence by which the charge is supported. . . It should always be borne in mind that the evidence in proof Of conapiracy will geuerally, from the naturo of the crirae, be circumstantial ; and this caae in this particular is* no exception to the usual experience iu criminal triala. Wo- fiud, iu the firat place, if the allegations iu the iirat, eecond and third articlea have been eatabllahed, that the Presidents waa engaged iu iiU unlawful act. If we find Loreng Thomaa or any other peraon co-operating with him upou an agreement or an undeiatDnding, or an asaent ou thei fiart of auch other person to tho prosecution of such un- awf ul undertaking,, an actual conspir.icy ia proved. The- exiatence of the conspiracy beiug eetabliehed, it ia then competeut to introduce the stafeinenta of the partiea to the conspiracy, made and done while theconapiracyw^e pend ing, u^nd in furthcrauce of the design ; and it la upou thia, ground :tbat teatimony has been oftered and received of the declarations made by Lorenzo Thomae, one of th& partiea to the conapiracy, subsequent to the 18th day of Januaryjl868,or perhapa the ISth of Jauuary, 18_^ the day on which he waa restored to the officeof Adjutant- Geueral of the Army of the United Statea by the action of the Prcsideut, and which appeara to have been an initial proceeding ou his part forthe purpoae of accoinplishiug his unlawful deaigu— the removal of Mr. Stantou frora tha oflice of the Secretary for the Department of War. The evideuce of agreement between the reepondent and- Thoraas is found iu the order of the 21st of Febuary, 186^ appointiug Thomaa, and Iu the convereation which too£ 5 lace at the time the order wag placed In Thomas' hands. 'heCGunaelfor the respondent at this point waa involved iu j» very serious difficulty. ,If ho had admitted (which he took care uot to do) that the order was ainilitary one^ he aaw that-his client would be involvediu the crirae of haviug issued a military order which did not pftss through the General of the Army, and thus would bes liable to impeachment and removal from office for thei crirae of violating the law of the "Sd of March, 1867, enti tled "'an act making appropriations for the supportoi, thej army for the fiecalyear ending June 30, 1868, aud for other^ purposes." If he had declared thatit was not a military order, then the traneactiou confessedly wasin the nature of an agreemeut between the Preaident and Lorenzo Thomas ; and if the act contemplated by that agreement was au unlawful act, or if the act were lawful, and thei meaus employed for accompliahing it were unlawful, theuj clearly the charge of couspiracy would be raaintained. Hence he was careful to say, in denying that the orderavaa a military order, thatit nevertheleaa "^invoked that, spirit^ of raihtary obedience which constitutes the strength oitho.' service." i ¦ ' , .-¦.¦¦li ' ¦ And, further, he says of Thomas, thai as a faithful Ad- jutantrGeneral of the Array ^fthe^ United States, inter ested peraoually, professionally, aud patriotically to have the ofiice of .Secretaryof tho Dpartment of Wanper- formed in a temporary vacancy,waB it-rnoto hia dutv to accept the appointment unleaa he knew that it was unlaw ful to accept it?_ The admb'siooa and statements o£ ^, 186 IMPEACffMENT OP ANDTLBW' JOHKSOlir; lei^med counsel are to the "effect, on the ^HiOIe, that the order was not a, military order, nor do we Claira that it was a military order, but it was a letter addrcBsed to General Thomas, which be could have decllUed alto gether, without subjecting binKaelf to any pUnlBbmentby a military tribunal. ' This is the crucial test of the character of the i^aper which he received, and on which he proceeded to act. Ig norance of the law, according to the old maximi exCueea &oman; and whether Gefters^ Thomas, at the first lutiei- Viewhehad with the President, on the 18th of JApilary, 1868, or at hie interview WiCb him on the day when he re ceived the letter of ' af>^jntment, knew that tbe Preeident was then engaged in aH^ unlawful act, is not materiial to this inquiry. The Preaident knew that hia purpoae was an unlawful oue, and he then aud there induced General Thomas to co-operate -with him in the proaecution Of the unlawful de^gp. It General Thomas was igborant of the illegal nature ofthe tranaaction, that fact fUrnlabeano legal .defense for him, though morally it might be an ex- cuae for hie , conduct. But certainly the Preaident, who did know the Illegal nature of the proceeding, cannot ex- euee himeelf by odsertiug that hie co-conebirator ' waa at the time Ignorant of the illegal nature ofthe busIueEsin which they were engaged. It being proved that the reepondent was eneaged in an Unlawful undertaking in his attempt to remove Mr, Stan ton from the office of Secretary for the Departraent of War, that hy an agreeraent or understanding between General ThoUias and himeelf they were to co-operate in Carrying thia purpose info execution, and It being proved, also, that tlio purpose itself wae unlawful, all the elements of a conapiracy are fully eetabliahed: and it only remaina to examine the teatiraony in order that the nature of the Oonaplracy may Uiore' elearly appear, and the meana by which tbe purpose was to be accomplishedmay be ihore fully underatbod. . , , . - The statement of the Pribaldebt In Ms message to the Senateuuder date of I2tb of December, 1867, diaclosea the depth of hiB feeling and the intensity of hie purpoae in re gard to the reraoval of Mr. Stanton. In that meaaage he speaks of the bill regulating the tenure of certain civil omcea at the time It waa before him for consideration. He says:— "The bill had not then become a la^v; the limita tion upou the power of removal was uot yet impoaed, and there waa yet fimo to make any changes. If any of thoee gentlemen (meauing the merabera of his Cabiuet) had then aaid to me that he would avail himself of the provisiona of that bill in caPe it became a law. I should not have hesi tated a moment as to his reUiovai." When, in the summer of ]£67, tbe respondent became satisfied that Mr, Stauton not only did not enter into the {^resident's achcmea; but waa opposed to thera, aud he de termined upou hia suBpensIon and final removal from the office of Secretary for the Depaptracnt of War, he knew that the confidence of the people in.Mr..Stanton was very great, andthat they would not, accept hia removal and au app ointment to that important place of any peraon of doubtiul poaition, or whose qualifiationa were not known to the country. Henco he sought, .through the sus pension of Mr. Stantou aud the appointment of Geueral i Grant aa . Secretary of War ad interim, to satisfy the - country for tho moment,but with the-. design to prepare the vray thereby for the iutroductioniuto.tbe War Depart ment of one of bis own creatures. -At that tirae it was supposed that the suspension of Mr. Stanton and the appointraent of General Grant were made under and hy virtue of the act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices ; and although the couduct of the Pre sident during a period of nearly aix months in reference to tbat office was in conformity to the provisions of that act, it Was finally declared by hira that what ho had done had '&een done in conforraity to the general power which he dlaims, uuder the Constitution, and that he did not iu any way recognize the act as constitutional or binding upon him. His message to the Seuate of the 12th of December was framed apparently in obedience to the Tenure of Office ilct. He charged Mr. Stanton with misconduct In office, which, by the'act, had been made a ground for the suspen- siou'Oi a civil officer; he furnished reasons and evideuce of misconduct whichj as he alleged, bad been satisfactory to him; and he furnished auch reaaons and evidence withiu twenty dnys after the meeting of tbe Senate next following the day of suspension^. - ¦ - ' All this was in conformity to tho statute of March 2, 1867. The Senate proeeeded to conaider the evidence and, reasons furnished by the President, and in oonfonuity to that act pasaed a reattiutinn, adopted onthe ISth of Janu ary, 1868, declaring that the ireasous were unsatisfactory to the Senate, and" that Mr^' Stanton was reetored to the office of Secrotaryfor the Department' of War. Up to that time there bad been no official atatement or declara tion by the Preaident that heihad not acted Under the Tenure of Office act; butbe now aasumed that that act bad no binding fbroe,^ and that Mr.: Stantod Waa not law fully restored to the ofhcie of SecvetaiT for the Department of War. • ' ' ' . Upon the adhption of the resolution by tbe ^cnate. ' General Grant at oucC' surrendered th^ office to Mr^ Stau ton. Thia act upon bia part filled thb Preaident with* In dignation both towards General Grant iand Mr. £tantonv and frora that day he seems to have been under the in- iluence of a Sottled&ndcriminal purpoae to' destroy Gene ral Graut and to secure 'the ^removal of Mr.- Stabtou. During the month following tbe reatoration >of Mr. Stan ton the President 'attempted to caiTy out bis purpose by various and tortuous methods. First, he enaeavoPed to eecure the support of Genocal Sherman, On two occasions, aa is testified by General Shermtm-^u tiie a7tb tmd 81st 6f January, tenderedihim the position of Secretary ofTTar adinterim. ¦' < „ . , „,_ It occniTed very naturaUy to General Shermau to In quire of the President, wihetber , Mr. Stanton would reQre voluntarily from the office: and alsp to aek tbe Preaident what he was to do, and wbetber bie would resort to forCelf Mr. Stanton would uot^ yield. The PresidentfiOnsweKdC 'Oh, he will make no bpjection ; you preeent the order and ne will T-etire." Upoh a doubt being expreaaed by General Sherman; the Preeident remarked^ "I know himbettfai thanyou'do; he Is cowardly." The Presidenjt knew Mr. Statitofa too well to entertain" any sdch opiutdii Of Kie Coul- age asbe gave in bis answer to General Shermati ; tbe secret of the proceeding, undoubtedly was this :— He desired, in the first place, to induce General Sherman to accept the otfice of Secretary of War ad interiia hpon the aasurance ou his part tbat Mr. Stauton would retfre wilUnglyfrom his poaition, trusting that when Gieneral Sherman Was appoiuted to and had accepted the place of Secretary of War ad interim, he could be induced, either upon the Buggestlon of the Preaident or under the influ ence of a natural, diainclinatiou on his part tp fail iathQ accompliahment of anything which he had undertaken, to seize the War Department by force. The Presideid veiy well knew that if General Sherman accepted the office of Secretary of War od iTiterim he would be ready at the earlieat moment to reliuaulsh it into the hands of the Pre sident, and thus he hoped through the agency of Generid Sherman to setrtlre the posaefiflion of the department for one of his favorites. . . „ , Duriugthe period from tbe IStbday of January totbe 2l8t of February he made an attempt to enlist General George H. Thomas iu the same unlawful undertaking, Here, also, he was diaappointed. Thus it is seen that from Auguat last, the tirae when he entered systematicaBy; upon hia purpoee to reraove Mr. Stauton from the office of Secretary for the Departraent of War, he has attempted to secure the purpose 'he had in view through the perSBhal influence and services of the three principal officers of the arra^; and that he has met withdisappointmeutinjeacll case. Under these circurastances nothing ^emalu^a'for tho respondent but to seize the office by an openi wUfall, deflant violation of law; andaa it was neceaeaiy forthe accoraplishment of hia purpose that be should obtain tBe sunport of some one, aud as bis experlbnce had satisfied him that no person of capacity, or respectability, 6r)par triotiem woidd, unite with hiui in his unlawful enterpnasi be sought the oaeistance and aid of Lorenzo Thomas. . This man, as you have seen him, ia on old man, a broken man, a vain man^ a weak man, utterly incapable of per forming any public service .whatever in a raanner credifc able to the country; but jtosseseln^, neverthelesB,:all the qualitiea and characteristics of a subservient inetrumeDt and tool of au ambitious,, unecrupuloua crimiuBl, He readily accepted the place which .the President offered bim, and there is no doubt that the declarations which he made to "Wilkeaou, Burleigh and ICarauer, were made when he entertaiued the purpose of executing them, asA made also in the .belief that.they were entirely justified br the orders which bo had received from the PrCeident, aud that tne e-xecutlon of his. purpoae to seize the War Deput- ment by force would be acceptable to Xhe Preaident, That he threateus to uee force tiiereis no doubt -from, the testi mony, for he hae himaelf confeaeed aubstantially the toatii of the atatements made by fdl the witnesaes for the.pttiBe- outlon who have testified to that fact. i Theae atatements were made by Thomas on or after the Slst of February, when he received hid letter of authori]^, in writing, to take poBseaaion ofthe "War Department. Tue agreement between the President and Thomas was con'- sumraated ou that day. With one mind they were then, aud on aubscquent daya, engaged, and up to the prsBent time, they are engaged in the attempt togetpoBaeQaioncf the War Departm^ut^ Mr. Stanton; aa the Senate by ite rcBolution haa declared, being the lawful Secretary of WaTi thia .proceeding on their part waa an unlawful proceedbw. It'had in view an unlawful pu^oee; it was therefore iQ contemplation of the law a conspii'acy, and the Preaideat is consequently bound by the declarations made by Thomaa In regard to taking possession' of the War Department by force. Thomas admits that on the night of tho Slat it wm mi purpose to use force ; that on tbe morning of the S2a du miu'dhad'Und&rgono a change, and bo-¦ Igh judicial character with whichhe waa Invested to the low purpo3|B of an electioneering partiBau." , The first article againat Huraphreys waa as follows :— *'That, resardlees of bis dutiei ae a citizen of the United States, and unmindfiil of the duties of his said office, and in violation of the aacred obligation of hie official oath^ 'to adraiuieter juatice without reapect to peraons,' *and aith- fully and impartially discharge all the dutiea Incurabent upon hira as Judge of the Diatrict Court of the United States for the several diatricts ofthe State of Tennesace, agreeable to the Constitution and laws ofthe United Stales,' the said West H. Huraphreve. then being a citi zen of the United Statee, and owing allegiance thereto, and then and there beiug Judge ofthe Dietriqf Coui4 of the United Statee for the several districta of aaid State, at a public raeeting, on the day aud year last aforesaid, held in aaid city of Naehvslle, and iu the hearing of divers per sone then and there preeeut. did endeavor,, by public speech, to incite revolt aud rebellion within eaid State agaiuat the Constitution Band Government of the United States, and did then aud there publicly declare that i,t waa the ri^t of the people of eaid State, by an ordinance of Secesi^Ion, to absolve theraselves from all allegiance to the Governraent of the United States, the, Constitution sChd lawa thereof." . The offense with which Hunaphreys ia charged in this article was committed on the 29th of December, 1860. be fore the fall of Sumter, and when only one State had pasecd an ordinance of eeceaaion. The declaration was merely a^eclaration iu a public eneech that the Stateiof Tenncaeee had the right to eepede from the Union. The Preeident, in his apeech of the 18th of August, 1866, at- Waahington, eays:— "We hove witnessed in one departraent of the govern ment every effort, a% it were, to prevent the reetor.iitiou of peace, harmony and union: we have seen, aa it were, hanging upon the verge of the governraent, ae It were, a hQdy calling or asaummg to be the Congreaa of the United fitatca, when It wae but a Congrees of a part of the Statea ; we have seen Congrees aeauraing to be for the Union. when every step tlifey took waa to perpetuate diesolution, aud make diaeolulion permauent. We have seen every step lliat has beeu taken, inetead of bringing about reconcilia- mou aud harmony, has been legialation that took the <^aracter>of penalties, retaliation and revenge. This haa been the course ; this has beeu tho policy of one depart ment of vour government." These words liave been repeated 80 frequently, and the public ear is bo much accustomed to them, that they have apparently lost their influence upon the public raind. But it should be observed that theee words, as hae been proved by the experience of two yeara, were butthe expresaion of a fixed purpoae of the President, Hia deaigu was to im pair, to underraine, and, if poeaible, to destroy the influ ence of Congreaa iu the country. Having accoraplished thja result, the way would theu have been open to him for the prosecution of his crirainal design to reconstruct the fiovernment iu the interest of the Rebels, aud, through his nfiuence with them, to secure his owu election to the Presidency in 1868. It raust, however, be apparent that the worda in the speech of Mr. Johnson are of graver iiu- portthanthe worde which were epoken by Judge Chase to tha Graud Jury at Baltimore, or thoee uttered by Judge Humphreys to the people of Tcuneeaee. And yet the latter waa convicted by a unanimoua vote of thia Senate ; aud the former eacap.ed conviction b / four vjjtee only. Theee worde are of graverimport, uot Merely in the circumstance that the^' asaail a departraent of tho governraent, but iu the circumetanco that they were ut tered by the Preaadent of the 'United Statee in the IGxecu- tlve Mansion, and in hie capacity ae. Preaident oi' the ¦United States, when receiving the congratulatiuoa and support of a portion ofthe people of the country, tendered to nim in hia oflice aa Chief Maglatrate. Judge Chaae, al though a high officer of the governraent, was without po litical influence and wifhoift patronage; bia personal and official relatione were limited, and his remarks were ad dresaed to the.grand jury of a judicial district of the coun try merely. Judge Humphreys was copinar ati veiy unknown ; and although his worde were calculated to excite the citizena of Tennessee, and induce thctra to engage iu unconBtitu tional undertakings, hia in%eace was limited ; to the people of that State. "r. J(- "- - ¦ 1 measurably "Mr." .Toh'ueon addreasBd tbe whole country; and holding in his hands the immense patronage and influence beloug- ing tp the office of President, he, waa ab^e to give practical -eflect to the declarations he then made. Moreover, in the caae of Judge Chase, ae ia stated by Mr, Dana ih hia * 'Abridgomeut," (yoL 7, chap. 3^2) :— •'On the whole evidence, it remained in doubt what words hedidutter. The proof of aeditiQUB intent reated solely on tbe words theraselvee ; and as fhe worda were not clearly proved, the intent vy*" ^n dbubt.V Inthe caae of Mr. Johnaon there is no doubt about tbe worde uttered ; tbey have been fully and explicitly Proved. Indeed, they are not denied by the reepondent. The uu- lavi'ful intent with which he uttered the words not only appears from the character ofthe language employed, but it fa proved by the hiatory of his adminiatration. In hia meisage of the aad of Juue, 186^ relating to the Constitu tional AmendmentiiBB ^'^P annual , message of December^ 1866, and numerouBottier declarations, he haa questioned, and substantially denied, the legality of the Congreas oi the United Statea. .' ',;..-. ,. In the trial of Judge Chase it was admitted by the re spondent "that for a judge to utter seditious sentiments withintent to excite sedition, would bean impeafihable offenee." (Dana'B Abridgement, vol. 7,, c. 222). Andithis, not under the act known as "the sedition act;" fotthat had been previouslv repealed; but upon the general .pri*, ciple that an officer, whose duty it is to adioiniater the! law, haa no right to use language calculated to stinup r*. eiatance to thelaw. If this be true of a judge, withBtiionger reason itia true ofthe President ot the United Statea, that he should set au example of reapect for all the departments of the government, and of reverence for aud obediaice te^ thelawa of theland. , ^^ „ -, * * ^, i a' V The speechea made by the Preaident at Cleveland and St. Louie, which have been proved and are found., in thg record of the caae, contain numerous paea^ea similar' in character to that extracted from hia speech of the 18tbof August. 1866. and all calculated and designed to impair the jiist authority ot CongrcBe. While theee declarationa have notbeen made the baaia of subBtantive chargea in the arti. cies of impeachment, they furniah evidence oi the unlawfal intent of the Preeident m hia utterance ofthe 18th of Au gust, and aleo of fhe fact that that utterance wae not duo toany teraporary exciteraent or tranaieiit purpose which paaaed away with the occasion that had called it forth. iS waa a declaration made in accordance with a fixed de sign, which had obtained auch entire control of hia natura that whenever he addressed public assemblies he gave es»- preesionto it. - .,._..,' The evidence which has been submitted by the reapon dent bearing upon the tenth article, indicates a purBoaB,^ in argument, to excuse the President upon the ground that the remnrks of the- people stimulated, irritatedand excited him to such an extent that he wae not wholly rs- sponsiblo for what he- Baid. If this were true, it would exhibitgreat weaknesa of character; but as a matter of fact it IB not true. The taunts and g)^ea of tbe people whom he insulted served only tb draw from hira thoee d&s clarations ¦ which were iu accord with the purpoae.of his life. This is shown by the fact that all ^hisuolltlcalde-i clarations made at Cleveland and St. Louie, though made under excitement, are in entire harmony with the declara tions made by him in' the East Room of the Executive Mansion, on the 18th of Auguat, J866, wheuhe was free. from any disturbing influence, and expressed himself with. freedora aud without exciteraent. .; The biaeuhemous utteraucea at St. Louis canuot be ag-i graviited byme, nor can they be e:^teu lifted by anything-, which counael for the respondent cau offer, Tbey exhibit the character of the speaker. , , i , Uppn th6se facta, thua proved, and the views presented,,. we deraand the conviction of the reepondent ot the ini*l deraeauors ect forth in article ten. Article eleven acta forth that tho object of the Preaident' In raoat of the clfeusea alleged in the pi^ecedlng articles^ waa to prevent the execution oX the act paeeed March ^' ;1867, entitled, "An act for the more efficient goveinmenc- ofthe liebel States." "It ia well known, officially and' publicly, that on the^ 29th' of May, 1865, Mr. Johnaon" leaned a proclamation for the reorganization of the'. Governmeut of North Carolina, .and that that pro-'' clamation was ¦ followed.. by ^ther proclamatione, ly asued, during the next four mouths, for the go vernment .or the -Bcveral States Vt-hiCh had been en- faged iu the Rebelliou, Upon the death of Mr.' rincoluMr. Johneon entered upon the office of President; in a manner which indicated that, in hie judgment, he' had been longdeetincd to fill the place, aqd that the towera. ofthe office wereto be exercised by him without regafdto' the other departments of the governraent. In Ms procla^ , mation of the 2dth of Mav, and in all the proclaraaiiiona re^' lating to the earac subject, he had aeeuih'ed that Inhia office aa President, he wae the "United Statea," "fdf -the i pnrpose of deciding whether under the Constitution the , government of a State was republican in foim or not;' although by a decision ofthe Suprerae Court it ie declared ' that thie power is epecially vested iu the two Houaea of' Congress. In these proolamations beiasBumed, without authority of law, to appoint, and he did appdintj Goveru- ' ora of the several Statee,thus organized. In fine, between the 29th of May, 1865, and the ftasorablihg 6f -Congre&aln I-Jeceraber of that year, he exercifed sovereign power over ', the territory and people of theelevenStates which have ' beeu engaged m rebelliou. , < . ^ On the asaerabling of Congreas, in tbe month of Decerii-' ber, he informed the Senate and Houee of RenreeentativeB : that fhe Union was restored, and that nothing remained ' for the two Houaea but aeverally to accept as Senatora ^d,, Repreaentativea auch loyal meu aa had been elected by the Legislaturea and people of the several States. Congres? refused to ratify orto recogniae those prbceedinga upon', the part of the Preaident as legal or proper proceedinga^, ."^f And from that time forward he has been engaged in variou's' , projecta for the purpose of preventing the reconatrufctinn of-' the Unioh on any other plan than that which he had in* augurated. In tlie execution of thia design he attemptdtt , to deprive Congreasof tho confidence of ttie people of th^' * country ; hence it was tbat,^ among other thibge, qU the ¦, 18th day ofAuguet, 1866, at the citv ef Waahington, as set ' forth iu the.tenth and eleventh articlea, be did, in> publib , speech, declare and affirm in substance' that the ITiirty- ninth Congresa of the United States was not a Congress ' authorized by' the ¦ Constitution to exercise legislative ; VDwer undct the aame; biit, on tbe*contrary, was a Coit- S=«aB of only « port of the atacev./ V IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON.' 183 IU the further execution of blspurpoSe to prevent the ret on struction ofthe Union upon ady plan except that which he had inaugurated, he attempted to prevent the' rktification by the.several Statee of the amioudraent to tho^ Conatitution known as article fourteen. By' the CouatttuJ tion the Pi'esident haa^o powerto participate inameud- rir^utS' or in propositions for amendmenta thereto; yet,' o^^In^ himself of the circumatanCe of the paeeage of a resolution by the House of Repreaentativea on the ISth day of June, 1866, requeeting tbe Preaideht to aiibrait to the Lpidalaturee of the-aeveral Stetes the eaid additioual article to the Constitution of the United States he aent to tho Senate and Houae of Repreaentatives a meaaage in writing, tn whichhe aays;— "Even in ordinary times any question ,of amending the Conatitution muat be justly regarded .as of paratnount im portance. This importance Is at the present tfme . bn- nanced by the fact that the joint reaolution was nor sub-, tiltted by tbe two lioueee for the approval of the Preai-, eut, una that of the thirty-aix States which couatitute the Union eleven are excluded from representation In ©ther House of Congres?, although, with the eingloexceb- ijiou of Tflxae, they, have been entirely restored to all their fimctiouB aa Statea, in conformity with the organic law of the la^d, and have appeared at the national capital by fienatorfland Represeutativea, wbo have applied for and bave been refuaed admission to the vacant eeats. Nor have the Boycruign people cf the nation been afforded an obportunUy of 'expressing tbeir views upon the Important duestlou which the amendment involves. Grave doubts, therefore, may naturally and' justly arise as to whether Qie actiou of CongfesB ia In harmony with the sentiraents OT the people, and whether the State Leglalaturea, elected without reference to such au issue, should be called upon by Congreee to deicide respecting tbe ratification of fhe pro posed ameudment.^^ He aleo aays :— , **A proper appreciation of the letter arid spirit of the Con stitution, as well as (ff the interests of national order, har mony and union, and a due deference for an enlightened public judgment, may at this.time well suggest a doubt whether . any amendment to the Constitution ought to be propoeed by Cougress and preesed upon the Legislaturea of the several Stat,es for final decision, until after the adraia- fllou of BUch loyal Senatora and Representatives of the now nnrepreeented States as havo been, or aa may hereafter be, Aioeen in conformity with tbe Constitution and laws of the United Statee." This message was an extra-official proceeding, inasmuch OS his agency in the work of amending the Constitution is not required ; and it was aleo a very clear indication of an pinion .ou .hia part that, inaBmuch as the eleven Statea wero not 1 epreeenccd. the Congreas of the United Statee had no power to act in the haiatter of amending the Conati tution. » The proposed amendment to the Conatitution contained proviaions which were to be made tbe basis of reconatruc tion. Tbe laws subaequentiy paeaed by Congreea recogui^e the amendment aa eaaential to the welfare and safety of the Union. It ia alleged in the eleventh article that one Of the purposea In the various unlawful acts charged in the several articles of impeachments^ and proved againat him, was to prevent theexecutiou of the act eutitled "An aot for the more efficient government of the Rebel States," passed March 3. 1867. In the natpre of the case it has not been easy to obtain tejtimony upon thia poiut, nor upon any other point touching the mieconduct and crImea ofthe Fresldent. His declarationa and his usurpations of power have -rendered alarge portion of the office-holders ofthe country ,-f or the time being, eubservient to his purpoeeB ; they bave been veady toconceal. and reluctant to comiuu- nicate, iny eyidlence calculated to implicate the Preai- d^t. ¦..¦,(.' Blia communicationa with the South have beeu gene- ^lly, and it may be said almost excluaively, with the men wbo had,participated in the Rebellion, and who'are now hoping for final auceeas through his aid. They have looked h> him as their leader, by whose efforts aud agency in the office of President of the United States they were either to accomplish the objects for which the war was undertaken. Or at least to secure a reatoration to the Union under such Srcnmstancea that, aB a section of the^ country and an in terest in the country, they should poaeeaa and exercise that pbwer wMch the slaveholders of the South poaeeaeed and exerciaed previoua to the Rebellion. These men have beeu bound to bim by strong bonds of hope, fear and arabition. The corruptipns of the public service have enriched multi- Uides of his adherents and quickened and strengthened the passion of avarice in multitudes more. These classes of men, posaeasing wealth and influence in many caaes, have exerted their powerto cloae up every aveuue of information. Offence the efforta of the coramittee of the House of Representatives and the efforts of the managersto ascer tain the truth and to procure teatimony which they were satisfied was in exiatence, have been defeated ofton ny the devices and machinations of thoae wbo in the North and in the South are oUied to the Preaident. There edn, how ever be no doubt that the Preaident in every way open to mm used bia Personal and official infiuence to defeat the ratifecation of-the Constitutional Amendment., . Evidence oF such diBPoaition and of the fact la aleo found in the tele- Sraphic correspondence of January, 1867, between Mr. Johnson and Lewis E. Parsons, who bad been previously SpSfnted Governor of Alabama by the President. It ia Ift follows :— MoNTGOMEBT, Ala.. Jauuarv 17, l667.-Legislature in ¦ftflBion Efforts making to reconsider vote oaConatitu- tiS AmendSeSt? sfports from Waahington say itis probable an enabling act will pass. We do notknoW Wbat to beheve. I find nothing here. LEWIS E. PARSUNSi — , _ ,, , Exchange Hotel. Hifl Excellency Amdekw Johnsok, Preeident. United States Mimtaby Teleobaph, ExECtrTrvB Of- FtOE, Washington, D. C, Januarvl7, 1867.— What poasi ble good can be obtained by reconsidering the' Constitu tional Araendment? I kuow of none iu tho preaent poatnre of ttuairB;and I dO not believe the people of tlie whole' couutry willauatain any set of individuala iu attempts to change the whole character of our governraent by enabling acta or otherwiBe. I believe, on the contrary, that they will eventually uphold all who have pati iotiam and cour age to stand by the Constitution, and who place their confidence in the people. There ehould be no faltering on the part of thoee Who are honeat in their determination to Bustainthe several co-ordinate departments of tbe govern ment iu accordance with its original design. Hon. Lkwis E. Pabbonb, Montgomery, Ala. ANDREW JOHNSON. Thia corroepondence shows hia fixed purpose to defeat the Congreaaional plan of reconetruction. Pureuing the aubjept further, itis eaay to discover and comprehend his entire echerae of ciiminal ambition. It waa uo less than this :~To obtain command of the War Department and of the army, and by their icombined power to control the electione of 1866 iu the ten Statea not yet restored to the Uuiou. The Congreaaional plau of reconatruction con tained as au essential condition, the exteuaiou of the elec-^ tive franchise to all loyal male citizena', and the excluaian frora the.franchiee ofa portion of those who had beeumost active in originating and carrying ou the Rebellion.' The purpose of Mr. Johnson waa to limit the elective franchise to white raale citizens, and to permit the exerciae of it by all auch persona, without regard to their disloyalty. If he could secure the control of the War Department and of the array it would be entirely practicable, and not dply practicable but easy for him In the coraing elections quietly to inaugurate a policy throughout the teu Statea by which the fortner Rebels, atrengthened by the military support of the Executive here, and bythe military forces didtributed over the South, would exclude from the poUs every colored man, and to perrait the exerciee of the elec tive franchise by every white Rebel. By theae meana he would be able to control the entire vote of the ten Rebel Statea; by the same meane, or indeed bythe forceof the facts, he would be able to aecure the election to the Derao- cratie National Convention, of delegatea favorable to his owu noraination to the Prealdency. The vote of theae ten States iu tbe Convention, con- eldered in connection with the fact that he and hia frienda could aeeure delegates from other eections of the country that, if he were norainated, he could control beyoud perad venture the electoral vote of these ten States, wodld have secured hia nomination. This be confidently anticipated. Nor, Indeed, can there be much doubt that this BCheme would have been euccesaf ul ; but It was apparent that there waa no poeaibility of hia obtaining the control of the War Department aud of the array unless he could diaregard and break dowptheact legulating the teuure of certain ciVil offices, paaaed March 2, 1867. If, however, he could annul, or diaregard, or aet aside the provisions of that act, theu the way wae open for the successful conaumraation of hie plan. With thouaanda and tens of thousands of office-holders, scattered all over the country. depending upou him for their offices and for the emolu ments of their offices, he would be able to exert a large influence, if not absolutely to control the nominations of the Deraocratic party iu every State of the Union. With the War Departmeut iu bia hands, and the Teuure of Dffice act broken dovvn, he would be able to remove Gen, Grant, General Sucrmau, General Sheridan, or auy other otficer, bigh or low, who, in hia opinion, or upon the facta, might be au obstacle In the way. With the array thus corrupted and humiliated. Its truated leaders either driven frora the service or aent Into exile In dietaut parta of tue couutry, he would be able to wield the power of that vast organization lor hia own personal advantage. Under theae circurastances it was not probable merely, but it wae ae certain aa anything in the future could be, that he would secure, firat, the nomination of the Demof cratic party in the national nominating convention, %nd, aecondIy» that he would aecure the electoral votea of thaie teu Statea. This being doue, he had only to obtain euougb votes from the Statea uow repreeented iu Congrees .19 make a majority of electoral votee, and he would defy tbe House and Seuate ahould they atterapt to reject the votes of the ten States, aud this whether those States had been previouab^ restored to the Union or not. In a conteet with the two Housea he and hia frienda and supportera, in cluding the War Departraent. fhe Treasury l^epartment andthe ai-my and navy, would ineiet that he had been duly elected Preaident, and by the support of the War Department, the Treaaury Departraent, the army andthe navy, he would have been inaugurated ou the 4th;'of March next Preaident of the United Statea for four yeare. ¦ Thatthe Preaident was and ia hostile to Mr. Stauton, and that he desired hie reraoval from office, there is no doubt; butbe hae not aasumed tbe reaponaibility which now rests upon hira, he has not incurred thehazard of hia preaent poaition, for the mere nurpoae (^gratifying his peraonal feelings towarda Mr. Stauton. He disregarded the Teuure of Office act : he firat suapended and then ret moved Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Dcpartmcut of War ; he defied the judgment of and the advice aud authority of the Seuate : he incurred the risk of impeachmeut by the Houae of Repreaentativea, aud trial and conviction by tbia tribunal* under the influence 1«0 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. SI pf an ambition unlimited and unscrupulous, which dares auythlue and everything necessary to ita gratification. For the purpoae of defeating the Congreaaional plau of reconatruction, he haa advised and encouraged the people of the South in the Idea tbat be wou\d restore them to their former privileges and power;, that he would cstab- Uaba white man's govemment; that , be would exclude tiie negroes from all participation in political affairs ; and. finally, that bo would accomplish lu their behalf what (hey had sought by rebellion, but by rebellion had failed to secure. .. Hence, it is through bis agency and by hu influence the South hae been given up to disorder, rapine, and blood- abed ; hence it ia that since tlie surrender ot Lee and Johnaton thousands of loyal men, black and white, have beeu murdered in cold, blood .or subjected to crueltiea aud tortures such aa in modern times could have been perpe trated only in savage nationa and In remote parta ot the world ; hence it ia that 12,0OO,0C0 of people are without law, without order, unprotected in their industry or their rights; hence it is that ten Statee are without governmeut and unrepresented in Congrees ; hence it la that the people of tbe North are even now uncertain whether tbe rebel lion, vanquished in the field, ia not finally to be victorious- in the councile and in the Cabinet of the countrv; hence it is that the loyal people of the entire Union look upon An drew Johnson aa their worat eneray ; henCe It la that those who participated inthe Rebellion, aud still hope that ra power mav once more be established iu the country, look upon Andrew Johnson as their best friend, and aa the laat and chief supporter ofthe vieWa which they entertain. The House of Representatives baa brought this great criminal to vour bar for trial, for conviction, and for judg ment ; but the Houae o£ Representatives, aa a branch of the legielative department of the government, hae no epeclal intereat in these proceedinge. It entered upon them with great reluctance^ after laborious aud continued investigation, and only upon a conviction that the interests of the country were in peril, and that there was uo way of relief excent through the exercise of the highest con.atitu- tionalpoWer veated in that body. We do not appeal to this tribunal becauae auy special right of the House of Representativea haa been infringed, or because the just powers of the existence of the Houee are iu danger, except as that bod.v muat always participate in the good or ill fortune of tbe countiy. They have brought this great eriminal to your bar, apd here demand hie couvictiou iu the belief as the restdt of much iuvestlgation, of much deliberation, that the interests of this country are no longer safe in his hands. But the House of KepresentativeB, representing the peo- ile df the country, may very properly appeal to this trlbu- jal, constituted, ae it is, excluaively of Senatora represent- ibg the different States of this Union, to maintain the con stitutional powers of the Senate. To be sure, nothing can fioiuriouely affect the powera and rights of the, Senate wnich does not affect injuriouely tbe rights of the House of RepreBCUtativea and of the people ot the whole country ; -but it may be said, with great truth, tbat this contest is first for the preservation of the conatitutional powers of Ulis branch ofthe government. By your votes and action in concurrence with the Houae of Repreaentativea, the bill **regulating the tenure of certain civil officea" wae passed, and became a law, and thia uotwithetandiug the objections ofthe President thereto, aud hie arguraent agaiuat ita pas sage. Ou a subsequeut occasion, wheu you considered the suspension of Mr, Stauton and the raubsage ofthe President, tn which hy arguraents and by statements he ae^ailed the law in questiou, you asserted its validity and ita Constitu tionality, by refusing to concur in the Buepenaion of Mr. Stanton. On a more recent occaeion, wheu he attempted to remove Mr,'Stanton from office, you, by soleran i-esolu- tion, declared tbat bia action therein waa contrary to the laws and to the Constitutiou of the countrv. ^Prom the beginning ofthe government this body haa participated under the Conatitution. and by virtue of the Constitution, in all mattera pertaining to appoiutmenta to Oflice; and, bythe uuiyereal practice of tne country, as well before the paesageof the Tenure of Office act as smce, no reraoval of any ofBcer whose apUointment was by aUd with tbe advice and conaent of the Senate, has been made during a session of the Senate, With your knowledge and sanction, except by tho nomination ofa successor, whose nomination' was confirmed by and witb tbe advice and consent of the Seuate. Mr. Johneon, iu preaence of tbis uniform practice 'of three- quar tera ofa century, and againat tbe expreas provieiona of the Tenure of Ofirce act, made in thia particular In entire harmony witb that practice, aaaerts now, absolutely, the unqualli fied power to remove every Officer in the country, without tbo advice or coneent of the Senate. Never iu the hietory cf any free government has thei-e been so base, so gross, 'so unjustifiable an attempt upon the part of any executive, whether Emperor. King, or Preaident, to destroy the justautbority of anotber depart ment of the govemment, TheHouse of Representatives baa not .been indifferent to thi^ assault ; it haa not been unmindful of the dauger to which you have been expoaed; it haa aeeu, what you must admit, tbat without ita agency and support you were powerless to resist theae aggreaaiona, or to thwart, id any degree, the purposes of thie usurper. In the exercise of their conatitutional power of impeachment they have bronght him to your bar; they have laid before you the evideuce showing conclusively the nature, the extent and the depth of his guilt. Ydu hold this 'great power in trust, not f or y oureelves merely, but foraH your aucceseors in these high placea, and for all the people of 'this country. You cannot tall to discharge your aul;y ; thtft duty is clear. On the one hand it is yonr duty to protect to preaerroi and to defend your own coua^tntional righta, but it » eaually your duty to preserve the lawe and the inBtitutiona of the country. It is your duty to protect and .defend the Constitution of tbe United States, and therighta of the people uuder it ; it is your duty to preaerve and to troBs. mit unimpaired to your succeaaora ^n these places au the constitutional rights and privileges guaranteed to thifl body by the form of government under which we, pa On the other hand it is your duty tp try, to coimct, to prououuce iudgment upon thia cnnimal. that all his au^ ceaeora, and all meu who aspire to the otfice oi PreHdeut» in time to come, may underatand that the Houeeof Kepre^ Bcntatives and tbe Benate will demand the smcteetob- eervance of the Conatitution; tbat they will hold every man in the Preafd^ntial office rcBponsible forangid per formance of his piblic duties, ., i ^ . -i,_. Nothing, literally nothing, Can be 8aid..ln defense pf this criminal. Upon hia own admissions he la gUilty.msub. atance of the gravest charges contained in the articles of impeachment exhibited against bira bj' the House of Re* presentativea. Iu bia personal conduct and character he preaenta no quality or attribute which enliata the ayro- . pathy or tbe regard of men. Tbe exhibition which he made In this Chamber on the 4th of March. 1865, by which the nation waa humiliated and republican inatitmiona diw graced, in the preaence of the reprcpentativeS of thecivt- lized nations of the earth, i^ a truthful exhibitioii( of hu character. His violent, denunciatory, blasphemous dbcl* rations made to the people on varioua occaaions,' and -proved by the testimony submitted to the' Senate, illu&J trate othei* qualitiea of his nature, Hia i0old indlflference to the desolation, disorder and crimes in the ten States of the South exhibit yet other and darker features. Cau any one entertain the opinion that Mr. Johnson is not guilty of such crimes ae jueiity bis removal froni office aud his diequali fication to hold any office of truet or profit under the Government of the United States? Willfani Blount, Senator of the United"'.State&, was impeached by the Houee of Repreaentativea and deAared guiltv of a hwo miademeanor, and though not tried bythe Senatevtne Senate did, nevertheleaa, expel him from blsseat by a vote of twenty-nveto one, andin the resolution of expulsion declared that he bad been guilty of a high misdemeanor. The crime of William Blount was^ that he wrote a letter and participated in conversations, from which it appeared probabletbat he waa engaged iu an immature echeme to alienate the Infans of the Southwest from' the Preeident and the Congreaa of tbe United States ; and also, incident ally, to disturb tbe friendly r^atione between thia gov^^ ment and the Govemments of'^Spain and Great Britaia This, at moat, was but au arrangement, never couBummat ted into any overt act, bywhich he contemplated/imder poaaible circumatancea which never occurred, tnat h9 would violate the neutrality laws of the United Statea.' Audrew Johnsou is guilty, upon the proofs part '^nd upon his owu admissiona,' of having intentibnally violated a public law, of usurping and exercising powers not 'eKe^ cised nor even asserted by any of bia px^eceasorB in office. Judge Pickering, of the Diatrict Court of New Bomp* shire, was impeached by the Houee of BepresentatJyeB, convicted bv the Senate, and removed from office, foe the crime of having appeared upon the bench in a state of iiv toxication, I need not draw any pu-allel between Judge Pickering and tbia respondent. Judge Prescott,' of Massachusetts, was Impeached and removed fi*om ofiice for receiving illegal fees in hia office to the amount of ten dollars and'aeventy cents ($1'0'70) only; Judge Prescott belonged to one ofthe oldest and most'emjk nent familiea of the State^ and be waa'bimself adlBtia. guished lawyer. But such was the respect of the S^ats ot tbat State for the law, and sucb the public opinion that it was the duty of the magistrates to obey the law, that they did not hesitate to convict him and remove bim from Tbe Earl of Macclesfield waa impeached and convicted for the misuse of hia official powera iu regard to trust funda, an offenee in iteelf of a grave character, but a*rivial crirae compared with the open, wanton aud defiant viola tion of law by a Chief Maglatrate whose highest duty is tbe execution of the lawa. If the charges preferred against Warren Hastings had been fully sustained by.the testimony, he would be re garded in history as an unimportant criminal when coio. pared with tbe reapondent. Warren Hastings; ae Gov, emor-General of Bengal, extended tho territory of the Bri tish empu-e. and brought millions of the natives of India under, British rule. If he exercised power iu India fw which there was no authority in Britiah laws or British cuatpmfr-if in the- exercise of that power be ^acquiretl wealth for himaelf lOr perraitted others to accumulate for tunes by outrages and wrongs perpetrated upon that dis tant people, he Btill acted in his public policy in the inter eat of the British empire aud in harmony with the ideaa and purpbaesof the British people, > ¦ . . Andrew Johnsou has diaregarded and violated tbe laws and Constitution of hia own country. Uuder hSs adminis- tratiou the govemment haa not been Btrenethened, but weakened. Ita reputation and infiuence at home and abroad have been injured and dirainiabed. He bas not outraged a dtatant people, bound to ua by no tieshut those which reault from conquest and the exemiee of arbitrary power on our part; but through hia violation of the.lawa and tne influence of hia evil example upon the men of tho o.0U;th, in. wkoRe hearta tho.;;purpnHe'a and passionBoftho war yet linger, he has brought disorder, confusion and Dioodshed to the homes of twelve mlllionB of people, manv 01 Whom are of ourownblood, and'aUof whomareour own countrymen. Teft Staites of this Union are without IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 191 U|Wt without security,, without flafaty; public order every where violated, public juBtice nowhere respected;' and all fid coueeciuencc of the exil purposes and macbinationa of the Preaideut. Forty miUions of people have been rendered anxioua and uncertain as to the mreseivatlDn . of public raace and the perpetuity of the institutions of freedom in this country. There ia uo limits to the consequences .of this man's evil fxamplo. A member of his Cabinet, In your presence, avowal proclaims Indeed, that he suspended from office, Indefiuitely, a faithful, public officer who was appointed by your,advlcti and conaent ; an act which he does not attempt to jUBUfvby any law or usage, except what he is pleased to call "the law of neceaaity. Ia it strange that in the preaence of these examples the ignorant, the vicious and lhe criminal are everywhere awift to violate the laws? IB it strange that the loyal people of the Soutbi most of tb^u poor, dependent, not yet confident of their newly acquired rights, exercising theirijiust privllegeain fear and trembling, ahould thus be made the victima of the worst passions of raen who have freed themaelves from all the reatrainta of civil governraeuts? Uuder the influence of theseexamploB good raen in the South have everything to fear, and bad raen have everything to hope. . Caius "VeiTCB is the great political crirainal of history.' For two years he was prsetor and tho ecurge of Sicily. The area of that country does not much exceed teu thousand equare milee, aud In modern tiraea it haa had a population 01 about two million soula. The crirainal at your bar has been tbe scourge of a country many times the area of Sicily,' and coutaining a population six times ae great. Verree en riched himaelf and his friends ; he eeized the public paint ings and statues and carried them to Rorae. But atthe end of his brief rule of two years he left Sicily aa he had foundit — In coraparative peace, 'and In the poaSeaaiou of its fnduBtrlea and- Its laws. This respondent has not ravaged Btates nor enriched himeelf by the plunder of their trea sures ; but be has ' inaugurated and adhered to a policy which, has deprived the people of the blessings of peacei of the protection of law, of tne just rewards of honeat ludqstry; A vast and important portion of tbe Republic, a portion whose prosperity Ib eaaentlal' to the proaperlty of tho coun try at large, is prostrate and helpless under the evils Which bia adminiiftration baa brought Upon it. When Verrea was arraigned before-hia judgea at Rorae, and the Exposure of IiIb Crimea began, his counsel abandoued his cause andthe crioiinal tied fromthe city. Yet Verree had friends In Sicily, and they erected a gilded statue to his name in the streets of Syracuae. This respondent will Lookin vain, even inthe South, for any testimonials to hiM virtues or to his public conduct; All classes are oppressed by the private and putuic calshuitiea which he has orou^bt mion tnem. They appeal to you for relief. The nation waits in anxiety forthe conclusion of these proceedings. Forty milliouB of people, whoseuinterest iu public affairs is in the wise and just adminiatration of the laws, look to tbiS'triiinmal as a sure defense against the encroacbmeutB of a criminal Chief Maglatrate. Will any one say that the heaviest judgment wblch you can give la any adequate puuiahment for these criraee? Your office ia not puniehraent, but to eecure the safety of tbe Republic. But human tribunals are inadequate to punish thoae crimiuala who, aa rulers or magietratea, by their example, couduct, policy and crimes, become the' scourge nf comraunitica and nationa. No picture, no power of the imagination, con illustrate or ednceive the-sunoring of ^e poor but loyal people of the SOuth. A patriotic, ^tuous, law-abiding Chlei Magistrate wouldhave healed the wouudaof war, soothed private and public sorrows, nrotet^ed the weak* encouraged the strong, and lifted from the Southern people the bui'dens which are nOw greater tban they can bear. Travelers and astronomers inform us i^atf^lntbe South ern beavene, near the Southern Croaa, there ia a vaat space ivhich' the uneducated call tbe holci in the Ay, 'where the eye of man, with the aid of the powers of th&teleacope ' has been unable to'diacover nebulaj, or asteroid, orcomet- or. planet, or star, or sun. In that dreary, cold, dark re* gion of space, which Ib only known to be leas thau infinite y tbe evldencea of creation elsewhere, the Great Autbor Ot celestial mechanism has left the chaoB which was in the beginning. If thiaearth werecapable of thesentlments and emotions Of juatice aud virtue, which in human mortal beinga are the evidences and tho pledge of 'our Divine, origm and immortal deetiny, ahe would heave and throw, with the energy of the combined forcea of air, fire, and water, and project this enemy of two racea of men into tihat vaat region, there forever to exist in a solitude eternal as life, emblematical of, if not really, that "outer darkness of which the Savior of, man spoke In warning to ^QBc who are the enemies of themselves,, of their race and of their God. But it is yours to relieve, not to punish. This done and bur counfary is again advanced iu the intel ligent opinion of mankind, .In. other governments an un- nuthful ruler can be removed only by revolution, violence oribrce. The proceeding here is judicialj and according to the forma of law. Ypiir judgment will be enforced without the aid of a policeman orasoldleF. What .other evidence will be needed of the valiue of republicaniiluBtitu- tions? What other test ofthe strength and, vigor,of our< government? What other aasurance that the virtue of l^e people is equal to any emergency of uational Kfe? The contest which we carry on at your bar is a conteat In defense of the conatitutional rights of theCorigres^ of the United States ;reprc8cuting thefueople- of; the United atates, against the arbitrary, un3ust, illegal clainis of the Hbcecutive; ' .„ .,-... Thia ie the old conteat of Europe revived in America. Stnglandt France and Spain bave each been- «& tbeatre Of thib strife. In France and Spain the Sxecutive tn^uuiphed. In England the people were victorioue. The people of France gradually bnt slowly regain their rightg. But even ?et there is no freedom of the prese in France ; there is no reedom of the legislative will -the Eraperor is supreme. Spain Ie wholly unregenerated. England alone haa a free Parliaraent aud a governraent of lawa emanating frara the people who are entitled to vote. Theae lawa are everywhere executed, and a sovereign who should wilfully interpose anv obstacle would be dethroned without delay. Ii^ England the law is more mighty than the king* In Amefica a President claims to be mightier than the law. Thia result in England was reached bysalow raovements, and after a atruggle which lasted through many centuries. Johu Hamden was not the first nor the laat of tho patriots who resisted executive usurpation, but nothing could have beeu more inapplicable to the preaent circumstances than the iutroduction of hia pame aa au apology for the uaurpi^ tioUe of Andrew Johneon, , "No. man will queation John Hampden'e patriotiara, or the propriety of nia acta, when he brought the queation iphether ahip-mon'ey wae Within the Conatitutiou of Eng. land, befdre the courts ;" but no mau will admit that there is any parallel between Andrew Johnson and John Hampden. Andrew Johnaon takea the place of Charles I, atid aeeka to aubatitute his own willfor the lawa of the land.- In 1636 John Hampden' r'eslated, the demands of a usurping aud unprincipled King, aa ' doea Edwin M. Stan ton to-day reaiet the claims ^ud deuianda of au unnrin- cipled and usurping PreBident^ The people of England have succeesfully reaiated au executive encroachment upon their rignta. Let their ex araple be not loet upon ue. We auppreaaed the Rebellion in arraa, and we are now to expel ft frora t^e Executive Councils. Thia done, republican' inatitutiona need no fur ther illuatration. All tbmga relating to the national weV fare and life are made as aecure ae can be by any fUtuxQ eventa.' « The freedom, prosperity and power of America are a&. aured. The fnendaof constitutional liberty throughout Europe will hall'wlth joy the asaured greatnese and glory of the new republic. Our internal difficulties will rapidly dieappear. Peace and proaperltv will return to every pOp; tion of the country. In a few weeks or months we ahalt celebrate a I'estored union upon tbe baaia of the equal rights ofthe States, in each of which equality of the people will be recognized and establlaheid. This reapond ent 13 uot to be convicted that theae thinga may come, bdt juetiee being done these thiuga are to come. At your bar the Houae of Repre?entativcs demands ju* tice— juatice for the people, juatice to the accui^ed, Juatice Ie of God, audit cannot periah. By and through juatice comea dbedlenCe to the law by all magtetr^tea aUd people; by aud through justice corapa the liberty of th€\'law, whifch Is freedom without licenae. Senatora, as far as I am concerned, the caae ia now in your hands, and it Ie eoou to be closed by ray associate. The House of Representatives haa preaented this criminal at your bar with equ^ confidence in hi^ guilt and In your disposition to administer exact juatice between him and the people of the United States. HiB conviction la the triumph Of law, of order, of juetic^e* ¦ I do uot contemplate his acquittal— It Is' Impoaaifale. Ther(^ , fore, I do nol look beyond. But, Senators, the people of America will never permit an usurping Exeeutivo to break dowil the securities for libertiea provided by the Constitu-, tion. TJie cause of tbe country ie iu vour bands. Xour verdict of gitiUgj ia peace to our beloved land. Whe.n Mr:, BOUTWELL bad coucluded, a« 1-05 P,M-. on motion of Skater JOHNSO^t^t the court took a fe-: cesfi of, flfteen minntes. - Jndg^e Nelson's Address. At twenty minutes before two, Mr. NELSON took tbe' floor on behalf of the President. His opening words were- rather indistinct, but he spoke substan tially a^, follows i'- Mr. C&ief Justice and Senators :— I have been engaged. iu-tbOT practice of my profeaaion aa a la\vyer for the last twenty years, and I liave, in the couree of ray somewhat diveremed professional life, argued caaee iuvoIvingliberty\ property and character; I have proeecuted and def ended ; everv epeoies of crime knowa to the law, from murder iu. the firat degree down to a simple assault, but in naing to > address- VOU to-day, I feel that all the caaes in which I waa. ever concerned, sink into comparative insigmficauce wben< compoTied to this, and a painful aenae of the magnitude of the caae in which I am. now engaged, and of my iuability- to meet and to defend, as it should bo deiended, oppresses me as I riae to address you; butl would, humbly' inydfceii the Great Diapenser of eventa to give me a mind to con^ ' ceive, a heart to feci, and a tongue to express thoee words which ehould be proper and fitting ou thia great occasion, I would humbly invoke the aaaietance which cometh frora on high, for when I look at the reaulta whiohmay fol- : low from this great trial ; when I endeavor to couftemplate in imaginatlbn how it \vill affect our country and the world, I stand b:vck, feeling that I am utterly incapable of cbmprehendiug ita reaulta, and that I cannot look into the futore and foretell it. I feel, acunehow, that it will be no.- 'ceasary upon thia oceaaion for ine to notice maijy thiuga which, as T-BUppoae, have but little bearihg, upon the ape- clfic articlea of impeachment which have been presented, and in doing ao. tq follow ^he language of Mt*. Wirt upon the trial 'qfJud^e Chase. If IfoliQw the dtgUment of tlie honorable manager more clb^elv than would iaeem neces. Wy to^^'eof^beooU^ it will ^ be remembered that it 192 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSONi would seem preeumptuoustpal^ht -any topic iwhich the leamed a!nd honorable managera have deemed it proper to press upon the coUaideratlou of the court. j , It haa been charged that the President was trifling witii theSenate. Scarcely had he entered upou this trial bo- fore charges were miide against him of seeking improperly tb gain time, to efTect an, unworthy and in?proper procras tination. I shall dwell but a moment upon that. We suppoaed that there wae nothing improper iu our asking at the naudfi of the Senate a reasonable indulgence to pre pare our defenee. ^ 'Wheu fhe ahbject of impeachment bad been- before the Hoiise of Representativee in some forra for more than a twelvemonth, and when the , House br the managers were armed at all points, and, ready to conteet the caae on the 0no band, and we, upon the , other, were suddenly ,aum- tb-onedfrom our proleaeional pureuits: we, whoarOjUot ^C'litlcljinat but lawyera, engaged in the practice of our profeaaion, to* measure arms with geutleraeu who are akillpd iu pqlltical affaire, aud who are well postiad . upon all the subjects that may be involved iu this diacueaion. ' But it la not merelv tho coinplaint aa to delaying and trifiing with the Seuate that it Will become ray duty to notice. A great many thinga have, beeu eaid, ,and among the rfeet an attempt has b^en made to atlgmatize the (Pre eident as a 'traitor to his party, as disgracing the poai- tion held by some ofthe most illuatrious in the lajid, aa a dahgeroug peraon, "a crirainal, but not an ordinary one," and aa encouraging murder, aaaasainatlou and robbery ^all Over the Southern Statee, and finally, byway of provmg that.there ia but one atop between the aublirae andithe ri^icftloua, aa bandying ribald epithets witha jeering rnqb, - My excuse for noticing theae chargea, which h'ave beeii made here iu the progreeaof the luvcatlgatlou Is, that nothing haa been said in viudicatioh of the Pfesident from them. ¦ ¦ ? ' It will be my duty. Seu^^tora, to JJay some attention to thera to-day. We haVe bbi-ne it long enough, and I pro-, poae, before I enter upou the.r^nveatiBation of the articles of iin'peachraent, to pay some attention to, those accuea-, tiona which have beeu neaped .upon us almodt every dav from fhe commencement of the trial, and which have, been passeii unanswered and 'unnoticed on the part of the Preaident ofthe United States; , , ., , , , If it is true, ae ia alleged, that thePreaident ie guilty of all these things; if he be giiilty of obe tithe 6f the of- fenaeB which have been imputed tp hira in the opening ar gument of yesterday and to-day, then I ara wiljlng f o eon- mtB that he is a raouater of such friightf ul lulen "that to be hajed needs but to be eeen." J ain willing lo admit that if he waa guilty of any of the charges which have been ihade against him. he is not only worthy of the cenaure of thia'Seuape, but you ehould " Place a whip in every honcsthand, . , To lash the scoundrel naked through the laud." JPe should be pointed at everywhere aa a mofftter , to,be banished from eocietv, and his name shoiild 'become, a word to frighten children with throughout the land, from ' One end to the other, and when any one ehould meet hira . or eee hira, "Each particular haijr should stand on end, like i quills on the fretful porcupine. ' , , If he wae, then I agree that neither I ndr thoae aseo- dated with me can defend hiui. But who is Andrew- Johnaon? Who ia thia man that you have pn trial noiv,,in regard to'whora the gaze, not "of little Delawarfe,''',but of the Whole Union and ofthe civilized world, la directed at, the prfeaent raoment; whole Audrew Johnaon? ' ,, ' ' , , Tbkt Is a questibn which but a fevp- abort yeatsago m'ahy, of those I now addreas cculdhave anawered with pleaaure. Who be Audrew johneon? Go to the tOivu of (jrrebnville, but a' ffew short yeare ago, a little village in the mbdutaina of East Tennessee, and you will see a poor boy entering that village— a stranger, without acquaintances or friends. following au hurable raechanical' pursuit, scarcely able to read, unable to.write, but yet iuduatrioua In hie professlgn, honeat and faithful in his deallnga, and having a'niind auch as the God of Heaven Implanted in hira, and which! waa designed tQ.be called into exerciee and play.befoi^e the; Arfierican people. , i i He enters the State of Tenncaeee, arriving pooi^pennl- lesa. Without the favor of the great, but scarce ha'a 'he eet. his foot upon her eoil, when he waa seized and 'c^resa'ed witb parental fondneae, embraced as though he had bbeU a favorite child, and patronized With liberal and fond beneficence. In the first place, the people of hiBpounty honor him by giving him a seat In the lower Legiela- ture ; next he aecdhda to a seat in the Senate, then to the House of Representativea of the Araerican Congreas; then, by tbe voice of the people, he was elected Governor ' df the State ; theu he was sent to the Senate of tho United ' Btates, and niaiwhole career thua far haa been a career iri which he haa been honored aud respected by the people; ' and it has onlyibeen withiu 'two or three yeara that' charges have -been preferred againat hira, such-aa thoee' whicll are preaented now. Never since the charges, ^f Warren Haetinga, newer since' the charges of Sir Walter Raleighj has any man been stigmatized with raore severe reprobation thau the President of the United States. All the powers of invective which- the able and iugonious managers cau comraand hfevebe^ brought into requisition to fire your hearts and to prejudice your minde aeaiust him. A perfebt storm has been raiaed around bim. All. £be and hia sacredi honor to save its, life froiu destruction and ruin, uow is* atlgmatij'ed and denounced is a traitor, and from ohe end of.the, laud to the other that accusation baa rungi until the echoee even como back to the capital h^re-. Itv tending if possible to influence the judgment of thb Sft^' nato, ' . - J * la Andrew Johnaon a man who is dispoaed to betray any ti'uat.rcpoaed in him? A mau 'who ha'a oil all occaaioiu^ been found atanding, by hia neighbors, standing by hia friends, standing by his country; who haa been tound on sJl oceaeiona worthy of the high confidence and trust thai "has been reposed iu him. I know. Senators, that when I Btafe these things in your presence and in your bearing,. ij - mayextort but a sraile of derision araong aomeiofthbae who differ with hira. in. opinion. I know that an uufortu nate difference of opinion exists between the Congreas of the United States and the President ; and in attempting to addreaa you upon some of the very questions through. wnich this ditnculti- arose, I pray Alraighty God to di. rect me and lead raearight, for I oelieve in this presence to-day that mv diatlnguiahed client ia inuocent of the chargea preferred againat him,.and I hope that God's bless- iugf which haa liolLowed hira so far in life, will follow :blui> ' now, and that he will come out of the nory furnace nu" Bcathed. ¦ i -; ' ., ^ Whb la Audrew Johnson ? Wby, Senators, when *W/^- ' battle of , Mauaaeae-ras.wo call it at the South, or of ^Bnlt ^ Run, as I believe itis called in the North, waa fou^ht-U,, when oiir troopa were driven "back defeated, and 'were! pursued in haate and confuaion to the capital— when men** faces .turned pale and their hearta faltered— where w*fl' Andrew jJohnanu theu ? With a reaolution undiemayed, and unfalterini^ly believing in the juatice ' of the ^ifilK cauae iu which the country was engaged, hia voice waS' heard here, procUiming to the whole country and to the whole world the objecta and purpoaea of the war. IHien iti wasthat hie voice was beard araong the boldeat of thoaa' who declared it the purpose of Congress to stand by and defend the ConBtitution, and to- maintain and uphold the governmeut. , > > Oue word more Senators, in regard to tbe Preaident bf . the United States. , It Is urged upon Ml hands, that wie ara ' addressing gentleraen of the hlguf'<>t intelligence and poai^ tiou in the, land, many of whom,iHr3ha8 been repeatedly said, are judgea ond lawyers well veraed in the law. WhsJt) haa'been your rule of conduct heretofore as j udgoa or law-* yere,, when you came to pronounce judgment upon the^ conduct of a foUow-mon? ^You have endeavored to place youf aelves in hia poaition, aud to judge from hiastancU poiut, and when you thus acted, you were enabled,*Unde»-i standingly, to determine in regard to a man's conduct, j whether it was right or wrong. I may ask you If it ia pos- Bible for you to do it; to place yOuraelvea in Andrew John- bou'b place and judge a little irom hia standpoint, and in ; the manner iu whichhe would.judge. > ' ^ I know that thia is asking a great deal at your bands. T§\ ia aaking a great deal of ihen whb 'have fixed opinions Bfcd' thoae which you hold, to aak them to review theiropinidna,' and especially where they differ from thoee of tne man'. whom they are to judge. But I know I am not addresaing; such a Seuate as the houorable managers apoke ofthe other^ day. 1 ara not addrsesiug politiciane. I feel that Lamj aJddressing judgea— the most emineut judgea known to law and the Coaatitution of the country— judgfia sitting upon' the greatest trial known to the Constitution ; and though iwe air know and feel whjat U' the power of paasionsand' prejudices and preconceived opinion, and how difficult it^ iato iav'iheir infiuence- 'aleide, yet. Senatora, I would re** Bpectfully and - moat humbly invoke you, in the name of that God before whom j'ou have aworn to judge in»' partially, to endeavor to banish, as far aa uoaelble, all prs- cpnceived opinions aUd all .politica, and riae to the dIgniW of judges and tho high dignity of tbia great occasion. I ^t4d even ask you to rise to tbat superhuman Godlike eiiorb wmch shall enable.youittt bauisb these opimo^SranA^ IMPEACHMENT OF' ANDREW JOHNSON. 193 perform that irapartial Justice which you have awCm to do. ^me people think it is impoeeible that we can' elose onr eyes to what ia at our very doore. It is imposaible not to know that the newspaper preas, tbe greatest and moet tremendoue power in the country, greater thau Senatora or Repreeentativea, and it ie impos- fible to close our eyes to' the fact that thia case haa been discUBsed and decided over and over again by thoae who favor impeachment and thoBC opposed to it. All raann«r of opinione have been expreased, and some have raade tiieir calculations on tho reault of the trial. Senators, I have made no such calculations ; I declare to you aud to too coimtry most Bolemnly that I make no auch ealcul^- tio/is— uo such unworthy investigation has for a moment agitated my mind. No, Senatoi"B,iI would not do a thing somanifCBtly improper to the poaition I occupy. What ever others may aay, X tell you that I do not regard ira- peachmcut as a foregone couclu&ion. If I thought eo, humble as I ara. and exalted as you are, I would scorn the idea of addressing myeelf to this nonorable body. But I do uot believe it, and no force, and nothing but the result which I trust in God may never hanpen, will bring my miud to the conclusion that any such state of things exists, ur can be brouglit about, for we all know enough aboutthc hiatory of our country to know that it requires no ordinary talent, no ordinary character, no ordinary ex periment, to get this Charaber, in which you aj'e acting as repreaentatives of your reapective States.* For It requires talent and character to enable men toconlehere and oc cupy the positions which yoU occupy now; and when- 1 thmk tliat the houor of the Senate, the honor of onr noblo ancestry, who framed thia tribunal to do equaland impar tial justice, ia at stake, I caunot for a moraeut credit such things as areiaHported, and I would say uow us ever to the American people, place no confidence Iu theae thIngB, be lieve that the benate of the American nation arc honest and honorable men, and in every time of trial and danger, when the billows of excitement roll high, when meh'a paa- aioiis aie arouaed and agitated to the uigheet degree, Iook to the Senate with hops and coufidence ; to those men who are in some degree elevated above dependence upbn mere popular clamor, look to the Senate with confidence, and ttiUB looking, thus hoping, your hope ahall hot be^n v^in. Thus it is that I shall endeavor to addreaa you QU this occaaiou.,' Itia with this hope and influenced by' theso considerationa that I uow approach some of the other topics which claim our attention, I ask, vou again, if poa sible, to place yourselves In tho condition of the President of the United States, aud divest yourselves,, as far you pan -and I agree that It requires an almost superhuman eifort to do it— of all preconceived opinione, and place yooi'aelves in bia condition and place. Then as to hia life aa a politician. Who ia the President of the United ^tatee? Why, a Democrat of the atiiCtest aucf and mo^t stirat con? struction- an old Jackson, rjeffereoulan Democrat ; a^'mah who proclaimed hia deuiocracyiuthe very teeth of ac ceptance which he wrote at the time.WheU nominated for the office of Vice Preaideut of the United Statee, and, yoii and the whole country were told that he was a Democr.'it, and he endeavored to rouse the old Democratic party to wbat he called the pure and correct doctrines of deiiio- cracy, and to stand by the country iu the great conflict iii which it was engaged. . When we look at thie, and exaraine the recorda of Con- greaB and the debatee; and loonL at hie record on every question iu which the Coaatitution of tho UnitedStates was involved, where do ym find tho President? You. hud him under all clrcuiiistancea, na ai atrict ' couatructlouiet of the ConBtitution, adhering with strict tenacity to the prin ciplea and spirit ofthe Conatitution, and of that party faith in which he bad been trained;, and when you look at thd fcreat difference between him a+:d the House of Repre- Sitotativea upon the ¦gredt qubet-'o-is Which agltiite the country yet, Seuators, I aekyou if lie may uot entertain an OliiHlon differeuj from your own withoiit blame? Do ac cord to him aomething of that freedora of opinion .which youaccord to every mau ou trial. Accord' to him Bomc- thlng of tho privilege which Is' accordbd fo the meanest; ^Irainal. Accord to hub tlie presumption that be is limo!- oent until be ia declared giiilty. ' .' TJOok at his motivea. jLook at the manner in which he baa acted, aud if there haa been an unfortunate difference between hira and the Congress of the United Statee upon' great constitutional queationa, whv attribute that differ ence, if you please, to the training, to the education, to the: habita of thought of his whole life, but do not attributo it. In the absence of proot^ to unworthy, base, dishonorable,/ mean raotivea, aa you are aaked to do upon the other Bide'., I beg leavelKeuatorB, to reraind you of the resolution to "Which I adverted a moraeut aeo; for in the view which I take of thia caee, that reaolution furniahea a key to the whole conduct of the Preaident in the controversy out of which this unfortunate proceeding has arleen. That resolution adopted in 1861, declares that Congress, In the prosecution of this war for tho suppression of the Rebellion, will recollect onh' its duty to the whole Coun try : that the war ia prosecuted ia no spirit of revenge, nor for the purpose of overthrbwing any of the institutions of the country, but to defend the Constitution and dll'laws made in purauance thereof, arid to preaerve the dignity, eguallty and rights of all the Statea impartially, and that OB soou as the ends were accomplished the war shriuld oeaae. There is tho dliart which haa guided the President & the United States in the discharge of his official duty, Thereis the platform Upon which he haa Ptood, ar^dif he hae not viewed it in the light iu which others have re garded It. still I aak if it is not capable of being regarded iu the light-fu which he has viewed itr M it is, theu I claim tbat we shall remove ftom tbis prose cution all idea of improper motivesj and I declaro that!, ¦In view ot the teatimony ottered on the other side ; in view of all that la known to the country, with the exception of one single inBtnnce, the Prowldefit ofthe Uuited Statea has -stood up* m letter und In spirit, to what he belicvea ; to be Hhe doctnne of this resolution, which waa adopted with aU ¦but perfect unaniraity by the two houses of (JougreBa-ia 1861. In the progresa of the war he felt it necessary f^ Jiim to yield the question of slavery ao far as he bad any infiuence in fhe eection of country in -which be reaided, and that he did yield, . - He went aa far as the farthest in proclaiming emancipar tion in the State over which he was placed as Military .Governor, and in other reepecta he haa endeavored to carry out that resolution in theamritin which it wae in troduced bj- the venerable Crittenden, whoee raeraory will -be regpected by those of you who know tbera, and as long as America ahall have a name, ao long as talent, genius and iudepeudeuce, faithfuluess and firmnei.E3 ahulf be vene rated, bo loug will the name of that greatand goodman he honored in our own and other lands— who declared lu the rcBolutiou which he offered, that the war waa not fTOsecuted for the purpose of conquest or eubjugatiou, but hat the dignity and equality aud rights of all the States should be iinpartially maintained. Do not raisunderatand. Senators,. It isnot my purpose ¦to cuter iuto any diacusaion ou the difference of opinion between the President and Cougreaa In regard to the re construction policy which haa been pursaed by thera. I only advert to it for the purpose of showing that there was a pledge -of equalitv of .rights to be preserved in 1860 and .1861, vvhen the galleries ofthe Senate Charaber rang witb the applause of the multitude; "wheu fair woraen and brave men" were not ashamed to express their admiration and gratitude for him whoie, now on trial before you for the course he then took, while ho had advocated a doctrine whichwas exceedingly obnoxioiw to the Southern people. What waa it? It wae that, the Congreaa of the United states ^had the power to corapel obedience to theConatitUr tion and lawB ol the United States. He denounced the docirine of secession, and deni'id that auy State had th^ right tc withdraw from the Union without the consent of all the States.' ... Heinsieted that tbe great power of tbe govemment should be bro light into* requisition to keep theee States within the Uuion. And when the war was over: when Lee had aurreudercd ; when the governraent of the United Statea waa caat upon hira suddenly and unexpectedly; in the euddeu emergency in winch he waa called upon to act haatily and speedily, ao ae to brine the war toM termlna> tiou aa soou aa poaaible, wbat did ne do? There waa no time to call Congreaa together; no time to aaaemble the R($- presentatives of the nation ; and sueh was the state of the couutry aa to demand immediate and proiript action. What did the Preaideut of the United Statee do? The Pi'eeident undertook to carry out what he believed to be the policy of his lamented predeceeeor. He undertook tliia in good faith. Ha mauifeetcd no deaire to segregate himself from the party by whora he had been elevated to power. He endeavored faithfully to carrv out the reaoU'- tion of 1861, to preaerve the dignity, equality aud rights of the Statee, ahd uot irapair thera iu theefighteBt degree. Aud now the queation le, suppose he Is wroug; suppose the Congress is right ; in the name of all that i-> great and good I attk any one of you to> say if he is a traitor to hia prmci ples, or a traitor to the party that elected him? It ia a raere difference of opinion, an unfortunate differ^' ence; a very unfortunate dinerence between hira and the> Congress of the United States. But who can say, iu tha spii'It of candor and truth, that he was not endeavoring and did not try, iu all hia acta, to carry oat what he be lieved to be the policy of the party by whom he was ele-i vated to power; and after he nad taken hia atand he did^ all he eould to have the policy of the laraented Lincolu carried out in regard to ArKaneas and Louieiana, believing that when Mr, Lincolu made his proclaraatiouin regard to the restoration ofthe Statea, he designed to reatora the Statea to which they were before '^e.war commenced. I ' aek, who can say there waa guilt Id that? You raay dilifer< 1 In opiuion, you may think he was wrong— undoubtedly a/ large majority of thia.Seuate believe couecientloualy that he waa wrong— but still do you believe you cau deprive' hira of theclaim of honesty and iutegrity. Ia a judge to be tried because he miatakea th^ law in a Charge to a jury? I need not turu to authority, I need,' not read law books to satisfy you that any man acting 'in a judicial capacity., from a eimple justice of the peaces 'to the, chief justice of the higheat court iu tl^e Uuited'i Statea, ia, protected bv the ^vvb while in the. faithful and honest exercise of the judgment whicn Is coufelrred upon him. You hear a great deal about the doctrine, 01 implied povve|','aud 1 shall have occaalou to speak, of thaf, mpre iu another part of mv remarks, but latine pUt one plain, simple question to tbia Senate, and to the whole country. -Can any one put hia finger upon any aentence or clause, in the Conatitution of our countrv which aays who iato restore the relation of peace iu tha land wheu they have , been disturbed bya civil war? You have the power to simpreea rebellion, but the moment you go beyond tbe lan guage of the Constitutiou you make useof.an implied ¦¦ power; and the moment you admit the doctrme of impli- , cation, then I maiutain that that dactriue ia just oa appli- , cable to the President ot the United States aa to any Sena- . tor or Representative. , _ , , , laek this aueation again; I know whom I am address- jug ;i I know the intelligence and the high respectability of chiLTact^r of tbia .great tribunal, and I put the question With jfearless confidenca to Qvery SenatQr:— Where d^es 194 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. be find tbe power in tbe Constitution to pass your Recon- .Btructiou laws unleas under the power to suppresainaur- TCctiou? where, unless under those general powera by ) wblch the war waa carried on and under which it is de clared that the govemment bas tbe inherent right to pro tect itself againat diaaolution, and in the name of law and luBtice that you inaugurate here in thia Chamber, and m- iBcribe over the doora that are the entrance ber-e; I aak you in the name of law and order and justice, where do you getthiBvcnverifuotfromimpUcatlonr - The Cou8ti.tutiou, is silent ; it doCs not say that Con.- rSB shall pass laws to>l^construct States that have been rebellion; it does not say tbat the PreBident ofthe tTnlted States shall do thia. You are obliged to reaort to iiriplication. He is the commander-in-chief of the army and navy in time of war. Peace had not been declared when these raeaaures of his were undertaken. It wae ne cessary to protect the country againat tbe ruin that waa likely to follow in the wake of hundreds aud thouaanda of soldiers tumed loose upon the country. There was no time to aek the judgment of the Congress of the United Btatea. He waa forced to act in construing the apwers and duties that belonged to bira upon his owu judgment,' as teommand'er-in-chief of the army and navy, and it he mis conceived hia duty or bis power; if befell into au error. Into which you may say Mr. Lincoln, his lamented prede- fteaaor, had fallen, let me askyop, gentlemen, is thereto ^e no charity, no toleratipn, no liberality for a diff'erence bf opiuiou? Are we to judge in tbe, spirit that goyet^ned the world two hundred years ago? Are we like those who bumed heretica at tho stake to introduce iu thia nineteenth cen tury such a standard of judgnient, aud forget that the spirit of the gospel has been spread abroad and thata spirit of liberrJity 19 infused'iiltD the minds of the people of this age? I ask Senators if the President ia to be judged in the anirit of the dark ages, or of the middle ages, «r iu an enlightened, pE^trlotio and Chriatian spirit?,^ Now, I maintain upou this great queation that the President, in tlia poaition of tho chief executive offieer of the nation, is entitled to the credit of having acted honeatly, and being govemed by upright and correct motives. And I maintain also, that in thie court, or in any court under heaven jioneaty aud integiity of motive is a ehield and protection /to bim againat all tbe darts that may be leveled at him Irom any quarter, high or low, j It ia a protection to him. The servant wbo knew bis maater'a will but did.it noL was puniehed, but never the servant who did not know his master's will, or who erred in an homnt exercise of bia judgment and reason. Now, Senatora.'^malntaau thatiithis cursory glance at the his tory of the country, and at the difference of opinion tbat exists bettveen Con^esB andthe President, is sufficient to show that he waa animated by correct and upright mor' (ives, and that he ought nut to bo judged Iu the spirit in which the honorable managers ask thathe shall be judged, Hia acts ought not to be taken aa an evidence that be in tended contrary to wbat be deemed to be bia duty under tbo cu'c umstances. Now, without discussing the question further, but merely for the purpoae of calliug tbo attenfiona of Senators to the subject, I neg leave, to remind thera, as I have already done, that according to. ^r. Stanton's owu teatiraony, in another investigation which baa beeu publiahed under tho aut^orlty^and sanction of Congrese, 'the Preaident ofthe United Statea endeavored to carry out wbat he believed to be the policy of Mr. Lincoln. I' wiU refer you to some few dates and circumatances in connection with this, and I shall then paaa from it without uiidcrtaking to discuss the merits of differences of opinion between the Seuate and the President. I only do so for ' the purpoee of relieving him from the charge of being a uaurper, a traitor; a tyrant, and a man guilty of every crime.known under heaven. . Now, Mr. Lincoln, in hia proclamation of the 8th of July KB64, stated that while be had failed to oppose the first Rs- oonstructiou bill paaaed by Congrees, yet he expreaeed au uuwillingnees to aet aaide tbe Constitutions of Arkansas aud Louisiana. And in hia Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 he invited tho Rebel Statee to form new constitutione, to be adopted by uot less thau one-tenth in number of the votes east in each State at the Preeidential electiou of 1860, each having taken the oath preacribed by his proclamation. Mr, Joljuaon, aa you kuow, when he came Into power, r^ognlzed Govemor Peirpoint 'aa the Governor of Weat Virginiav which the Congrees ofthe United Statee thought (and rightly) was sufficiently well organized to justify them in consehting to tbe forhiation of a uew Btate. Se nators will parduu me if I fall into errors on theee sub- jecta^-be6auee I am no politician, and it Ib like carrying coals to NeWcaatle for any of us to argue theae questions before Senators and the House of Representatives, who are more familiar with them than we are: and if 1 fall into errora, they are errora of ignorance and not of deaigu. I kuow the great superiority that the honorable managers have in this reapect over us, and I acknowledge it becauae e&cb member of the House of I^preedutatives and every Senator, iU reference to these aubjecte, have been con cerned iu them. Bul stilf. Senators,! beg leave to remind ybu tliat Mr. Jbhneon recognized hCrGdyernor. That State was recognized aa a Stato under an election b^ld by the people. Under t^iat election West Virginia waa forraed'into a ueW State, and all this wste doue, if I am not mislntormed, without any act of reconatruction being paaaed by the CongrdSa df' the^ United Statee. Now when the President came into "power; whenjio saw that the Cougreaa of the Uulfod Statea had recognized and ac cepted Woat Virginia ae a Stite, was ho' uoifc juatified in tne belief that he was pursuing not only the' policy of Mr. Lincoln andthe party that eKcted hii£ to libw^, but the policv of tbe Senate and the Houae of Represen tafciji^|||, of the United Statea? and if, he comdiitted an error, ^»i»i|at it waa an error, I repeat it wasi an error of the h^|[j.n'Dd Iiot of tbe heart, and ought not lo be made a matter of ac cusation againat bim. Let me now call your attention tb the fact that between tbe 29th of May aud the 13tU of July, 1865, he appointed Provisional Govemorfl for No!.-th Caro- Una, Mlasiaeippi, Georgia, T^xas, Alabama, South Carolina and Florida, j . Now let me pause a moment, anq aak you a queation here. Up totbe tiuie/of the aaaemtaling of tne Congreas of the United Statea in December,. 1865, who waa there ia ati this broad land, from one ^nd of it to the other, that dared to point the alow, unmoTing finger of acoim at Andreiy Johnson, and aay that he was a traitor to his party, or that he had betrayed any trust that bad been reposed lu hiui He waa faithfully canying out what h«s behoved to.be the policy ofthe Congreaa aud hia predecessor, who waa anx ious that the Union should be restored. He was anxioua to pour oil upon the troubled, watera^'anfl to heal the living Wounds of bis diatracted and divided country, and if he erred it was an error wliicbi intend«ia to reatore peace and harmony to our bleeding country. If it was au error, it waa designed to banish the rficolle(j,tiott of war, and which was intended to bring iu a fraternal eiu- brace the brother and sister, the huaband and wife, who had been aeparated during the awful cal amity which over shadowed our couutry in that terrible civil war that drenched the land iu human gore ; I aay. If ho committed an error, iu theee thinga, it ia not an error that ahouid be imputed,a crime. However you may differ with him, if you pronounce on hia conduct that judgment which I.1& voke elevated judges to pronounce— if you will pronqiUnoe that cool, dispasaiouate judgment, whichgpiust heftier. cieed by every one of you who intenda faithfully toieaeem the pledge which he hae made to God and the country— I think, Senators, that you will acquit bim of thia aeouaalloii that has been made agaiuat him, < ' 'Vi<. Kow one otber thought, aud I leave thie branchof the subject. On tbe SOth of August, 1866. the President of ths United Statea proclaimed the Rebelliou at an end, and oil the 2d of March, 1867, an act wae approved entitled, "Al> act to provide for a teraporary increase of the pay of ol&- cers in the army of the United Statee, aud for other pur- poaee." By the second section of that act it is eiiactell that Section 1 of tho act entitled "An act to iricrease tUd pay df soldiers in tbe United Statea array, and for othep purposes, approved J utte 20, 1864,be and the aame is,hereby continued in full force and effect for three yehrs fitni and after the close of the Itebellio':^, as ' anriounced by tbcPre^ sident of the United' Stdtea by proclamation beatirie atate the 20th day of Auguat, 18ffi.^ ^ ' ,. " '^^ There is a legislative recognititfon of the fact that ths war i^ at an end. Tjiere is a recognition of the PreBident'a powei* BO to proclairii It, and withoiit discusaiu^ thede queations, for I have said I will riot enter upon the dia cussion or them, I advert to it, and m3' reason for alludjog to it is, by the remarks, I ralgnt aay repeated remarkathat have been raade by the honorable managers that tiya did not ahow that thia legislative recognition of the Preai dent's proclamation announcing the termination of the civil war, and the close of the rebellion was a rccoguitioQ of the facta that the SoutheriU States were not but of ths UriiOn, and that il- goes far to extenuate. If notto juatify ¦the View which the President took inrefcr6nc6 to the re- storation of the Stateato tbeir bamiionious relations with the government of the country. And now, Seuators, having disposed to 'soine extent, 'biff not entirely, of these personal charges ihade ItgaiuBi thei President, and having reviewed brieuy and finperfcctJy somethiiw of bis personal and political histoiy, I invi^ you to look back upon the record of, bj^ whole me and biq name. I aak you— T ask the country to-dav to reriien^ber hfa cou rati. We appeal with proud confidence to the whola country to attest tbe purity aud Integrity of hia motlvesj and while we do not claim that hia judgment is Infallible, or that he may not have committed error— and who, ija hi« position, may not commit great and grievouaerrora— whys, we claim no euch attributes as theae, wo do claim, hefore the Senate and before the w^orld, that he ia an hornet raaD,j that he ia a man of integrity, of pure and upright mo tivea, and notwithatiindiug the clamor that has, been raiBcA against him, he appcali to the judgment of this Spnate aad theworld to vindicate him. ' - Mr. Chief Justice and Senatpra ;— One of the firat and- moat Iraportant questious iu my view, iaa question wliicli I, h^ve barely touched in passine along, but hve not at-- tempted to notice at length. That queatlon is, what sort of a tribunal thia ia? Ie it a court or not? Soraq.volleat bave beeu taken on thia question, but it haa not, been dis* cussed, according to my recollection, by any ofthe nouned for the Preeident. At an early period of the trial you de liberated upon it in your Chamber. What debates you ,had wiero I know not. Whether they have been pub lished or not I know not. Your votes were aunouhcca .by the Chief Justice, but whether tho discussions in secret seasion have beeu publiahed I know not. AJI I have to aay la that I have not seen tlicm if they have been publfehei While I do not know to wbat extent the opiuiona ol Senatora may be fixed, and confirmed on tbia question, !¦ aak you aa a matter of right, whother vou consider youi^- - selvea aa having decided it or not, tliitt you will allow me to ' addre^amyaelf for a short time totbe consideration of this queation, >^'hich I rqgard -as one of the gi'eatest q.ucatiouj} which has been preseuted aince the formation or our go vernraent. I think I am not asking too much at the handa of the Senate, when J ask to be heard on this eubject. It waaiirgued by the honorable ui&uager who opened ths IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 195 nse that this ia a mere Senate. It is a court.- Lwflll call Four attention to a single paragraph or two in the argu ment of the learned manager, who haa managed this caae with such consumate tact and ability on the aide, of the proaecution. and froni whom we have bad ao indny fine eicarapleti of the decency and,propriety of Bpeech/ ¦Heaava:— "Wedlaim and respectfully inalat.that tbia mbunal hasnone of thcattributesof a judicial court as ttey are commonly received and uunderstood. Of course «UB queation must be lai'gely determined bythe expeoBs proviaiona of the Constitution, and iu it there Is no word, ; M w ^ell known tp you. Senators, which givea the jfught^t coloring to Oie id,ea that thia Ib a court, aave :|batin the trial of this pai^tlcular respondent that the Chief Jnstice of tbe Supreme Court must preside.'' Tbi^t cluestlon has beeu confirmed again, in argu ment by otbe», and pamphlete.. I bad abneat said volumea, have been writtenon thla'siibject In , the learned ftrgumeiits' which have been presented to the Senate- and throng the newspapers to the' public. Gentlemen^ in tnei!r reaearchi,haye gone back to Jtlifi black-letter .learn ing Of the Englisl^ law books tq search for precedents and authorities iu reference to this itueatiou, and nave as sumed this as the result— that this is a High Court, of Im- poAchment, prtseeefllug all the powera of a coiirt, of im peachment in England; thatit is to be governed by the ,^me rules and regulations; thatyou ^re not to go to com mon law for precedents to guide ,vour judgment, but that £ou are, in the, language of the gentlemari on the other mde; ''alawuntoyoureelf.", Let us consider this argument a moment. I bave but one answer to make to it. It is not my piirpoae, Senators, to foUovy the carefiil, iuduatrioua, vigilant aud learned managers (and these are uot mere words, for they have ,mowu talents in tbe highest degree creditable to them), into ;all their carefully prepared precedenta, and argue ,tnem at length, but , I submit one or two arguments which - eeem to me pertiuent and appropriate. My firat position ia this :— I deny, out and out, that you .Ure to go according to alaw of Parliaraeut, becauee I ^maintain that this tribunal Ib different frora any other that has ever exlated— no such tribunal la known in hia- f;ft>ry. It neverbad a parallel. You are to interpret the ''^Anstitution, not in the light of English history alone,, but fho light of the circuDiistancea under which it waa opted. 'I do uot say that you areto igriore' history, nor e precedents £lven us Py the Euglish parliament, or at bave been made iu English courts of j ustice. ' Wbat I do say is th^e, that upon some subjects it ia per- .fectly right and propor to go to Eughab hiatory and Eug- iisblaw Dooka, with a view to interpret those phraaea and terms known to English law which have beeu incorpora ted iuto our Couatltution, but it never will afford auy clue - Jto this Investigatiou, or throw any light on the subject. "Why ? Because this tribunal has no exemplar In the bis- .toty 0/ the world. It is a tribunal of the American Cou- 'stltution, and we muat look to the language of, that Con stitution in order to aacertaiu what it means, .< I aak (and I hope the Chief Justice will uot take offenab At my phraseology) whether it was the iutentiou of the -Cramers of the Conatitutiou that the Chief Jriatice ofthe ¦United States should be- ci^lled down from tho moat ele vated tribunal on the face of the earth to preaiduover your deliberations, and when be comes here, he ahall have •nomorepower than an ordinary Speaker of an ordinary House of Representatives, and hardly eo much~a machine through which the votes ofi the Senate are to pass to the xecorda of the Couutry. I insist that there wasa blghob. Ject and purpose intended by the framera of the Constitu- ion when they called the ChiefJustice from uis elevated poaition to preside over the dellberatione of the Seuate. - . rlXbere was an object and a purpoae auch ae never waaat- Awi|ed in Engliah histor/, au object such aa waa unknown so the Britiah Conatitution, and I contend, therefore, that «W,waB not ii^ended by the framera of the Conatitution yi&t the ChiefJustice wae to be a mere cipher iu thie trial. Jib^.leave to remind ,you of aome facta relating to the hia- Mtyof thia subject, and I do conaider in doing eo to bring Jn tbe volumes and read page after page to you. I take it ror granted that the Senators ore a great deal better in- (^ormed upon it than I ,aiu. All, thai I deem important or Eaterial for me to do is to refreeh your recollection In re- tion to some of the subjects connected with the incorpo ration of that provisiou in the Constitution of the United 0tates. You will recollect. Senators, that when the Constitution was about to bo formed there were various plans of go- Tfflrnment submitted. Colonel Hamilton introduced a plan of (jc^vernment, tbe ninth section of which provided that gie Gbvorndr, Seuators and aU .officers bf the United tates should he liable to impeachment for malfeaaauce and corrupt condpct, aud that on impeachment the per- lonconvictedahouldlie removefrom office and diaquali- iedfrdm holding auy office of truet or profit under the Piited Statea— ajl impeachment?- were tobe tried bya ^iT was introduced iu thie: Con vontion ou riiMTigth of June, 1787, and it is foMudin tbfi firat volume of Mott's Debates an the Federal Constitution, paBe;Ul8/ Mr; Randolpbha4 a plan of govemment^ the thirteenth tiropoaition oi wnioh waa that, the juriadiction ofthe na- flonal judiciary ahould extend to casea of^irap^chraent of any national offlcec and to aneationa iuvolnng.the na tional peace and harmony. This was Introducod on the Mth of June, V787, aud la set out in firat Elliott's Dfebates, bage 183. lu Mr- Charlea Pinckney's plaui introduced first ofMay, 1787, it. was provided that the juriadictiott of tho it'"'I^*?^.*^""6d the Supreme Courti should extend to the trial or impeachment of officers of- the United States^ Mr. Madison preferred the Supreme Court for the trial of impeachments, or rather a tribunal of which that court ahould form a part _Mr, Jefferaon, In hts letter of 33d February, 1798, tis, Mr. Madiaon, aUudea to an attempt to have a inry trial of im- ueachments (foiirth volume of Jefferaon's Worka, 315), and Mr. Hamilton, in the Federahst (No, 65, pafee 355), oakB whether It would have been an improvement on the plan fo have united the Supreme Court to the Seuate in the form wf a Court of Itnpeachment. He aaye It would certainly haye been attended with certain advantagea, but he aalES whether they wOiild not have beeu overbalanced by the disadvantages arising from the aame judgea having agaiii to try the defendant, in caee of a double prosecution. He adds that, to a certain extent, the benefits of that union would be obtained by making the Chief Jurtlce of the Su preme Court Preaident of the Court of Impeachment, aa wuB proposed. Madison. Mason, Morris, Pinckney, WilUamaon, aud Sherraan discuaaed the impeachment queation. A cdm- -.mittee on style and arrangement waa appointed, conalsting of Johnaon, Hamilton, Morris, and King. On Wednesday, 12th of September, 1787, Doctor Johnaon reported a digest of the plan, and ori Tuesday, 17th of September, 1788, ttie Engrosaed Constitution woS read and signed. So far as we nave examined thia queation, it does not appear wheu nor how theae words— "when the Preaident of the United Statea ia tried the Chief Justice ehadl preside"— were in aerted in tho Constitution. No doubt ysu are riiuch bett^ inforraed on the eubject than myself. I have read and seen it stated that they must have beep introduced by a conference committee, and that that fact is shown by Mr. Madison's writings; butin the searches which I have been able to make in the abort time during which this iuveatigation has been going on, Ihave noS been able f 0 ascertain whether that is so or not. So far oe I do comprehend or understand it, I raaintain the follow ing propositiou, to Which I reapectfully ask the attention of the Chief Juatice himself, and aleo the attention of the 'Senate. ' ... - I ahall not dwell upou it at any igreat length, but lejwe it to you, Seriators, and to the Chiof Juetiee, to jud^ for youraelvea whetheritia lounded on aound reaaon. First, 1 hold that the law of Parliament fnrniahea no satisfactoiy explanation of the union of the Chief Juatice with the Senate on impeachment triala. That explanation muat ne found in the circumstauces under which the ConstItutio|i was formed. I think itia one of the moat important cou- elderationa in the luveatigation of thia great queatioii. You have seen that one of the plana waa to have impfeacfi- mdnts tried by a court to be cOmpoeed of judges from each of. tbe States t auoiher plan was to have them tried by the ¦Supreme Court 'of mhe United States. - Another planww to have the Siipreme Court ofthe Uuited States asaociated with the Seuate iu the triaL Every one oftheee plans, you will perceive looked to judicial asalstance In the trial of the cauae, and when ^ was determined that the Chief Juatice ahould preside, . I imagined thatit was deteilniued that he should couie here aaa Judge, that he'should corae here clothed asbe is iu his robes of office that ho ehould declare the law and pronounce a judicial opinion upon every question ariaing in the caee. While I know thatit ie for your honor to de terraine what course you will pursue, while I do notpre- BUine to dictate to this honorable court or to thfi Chief Justice whopresidea over it, for It ia ray province td argue, land it ia your province to decide aud deterraiue. ' I do reapectfully inaist, before the Senate and^befots tho world, that I have a right ae one of the ' cdunadl f or the President, to caU, as I do call, ^pon the venerable Chief Justice, who presides over your deliberations, for an ex pression of his judgment an^.opirilon on any queation. of law that may arisej and now,' in the nairie of coramon sense, doea fhis doctnne of mine trench in the elightest de gree upou auy right of the American Senato? Doea it coU- .Jiict With anv duty, or with any power impoaed upon yo^ by tbe Coustitntion of our common country. Why, Senatora, learned ae you are, respectable aaisyow standing at home, high aa is your poaition which your Statea have couferred upon you in placing you here, you Btill mav derive inatruction from the opinion of a gentle man learned in the law, and holding the highest judicial office iu the land; doea it invade any privilege, auy prer&- gative— I do not like that word— or auy power of tnb American Senate, to say that we ask the deliberation aii^ the prudent and dispassionate judgment of one who is ppfr sumed to hold the scales of justice in an unfaltering' ^d untrembling hand of one who holds hia office mdependent of popular exciteraent and popular commotion, who has been elevated to hie high position because of bis learning^ hie iutegrity, hie talerits and his character. Is it, I ask, auv diaparageraeut ev,eu to tbe America^ Senate, to respectfully requeat of him that he shall deliver an opinion td you upou any queation thaif may arise in this case' And thfen, Senators, it will be for ydu to judge and determine for yourselvea, uuder such an. opinion. What ever riiay be the opinion youliave formed, 1 Iiisist that so far from being an argument in diaparagemel^t eitnor of the power or of the intelllgeuce of the Senate, it ia an arguraent which, in ita nature, is calculated to aid the Sonate aa a court in arrriving at a correct conclusion; and I hold that no inanwho regards th^ Conatitution and the law of the law— no mau who is ia search of justice— no man who ia willing to ae'e the law faithfully and honeatly and impartially administered, con for one moment deuy the ri^t of thi,'» great Civil Magis trate, clothedln bia judicial robes, and armed witb all the 196 IMPEACHMENT OF A'NDREfW JOHNSON. goweir and authority of theiConfltitutidn^todeclare'what e believes to be the law on qUeations ariBing in this case ; ;W^hen you look at the clauee of the Coristitutlon under iwhich thia power ia conferred, you see that every word iri It is a technical word. The Senate ahall try the impeach ment, and on thia trial they ahall be on oath or affirmation, and the Chief Justice ahall prepide. I do not quote the ; words literally, but they are familiar to yoii all. , , , ¦What is the mean ing, of the word "trial?" It.Ie not ne- ceaaaiT forme toieriter into any elaborate definition of it. It ia enough for riie tp: Bay that It ia not uaed iu the Conati tution In ma sense of suffering, nor in the senae luwhich itlspaed In cummou parlance, but itis need in-the aenae .of a judicial proceeding. The word. "trial'* ia aword dear to every Ejigliahmau : Jt ia a word-dcar to every American ; it conveys the idea ofa judicial trial, or trial in whieh a' Judge ,i8 to preBid|e;a trial, Iu which amau akiUcdiiud' earned iu thela.w^ arid suppoaed to be a mau of indepen dence, la to preside . ,. i . ¦ ^ ¦ ' '¦ - -- . ' It ia a proceeding dear to 'every Eugliehman, and dear (to every American; becaufo.-^for centuriea in England, and aince tl^c formation of the governmeut here, it has been regarded aa eseeutial to the preservation of th^ liberty of the citizen that a trial shall be thus conducted, with oJl the aid of judicial interpretation that canbeob-, tained. Worcester deflnes preaiding as being placed over Others. Jiavlng authority over others; presiding over on aeeeiuDly. So the word "trial," aa 1 have said, is uot uaed; In me aense of the manager, but to convey the idea of judicial proceedings aimilar to those before court and -,3ury. So the word "Chief Justice,'' as uaed in that phraae in the Conatitution, ia a technical word. What doea it mean? ..itmcauB a judicial officer. The Constitution ddea. not say in ao.mfiny worda that a judicial tribunal ehall be created iri which there ehall be a Chief Juatice. It authorized Congrees to create judicial tribunals; it took for grauted that there would -^be a court ; it assumed that iu that court there would be a Chief Juatice.-and thdt' . he Bhould be a Judge ; and when it aasumed that he should act in that capacity, which I insist upon, without dwelling on the argument further I cap only aay that in the views which I entertain of the queation, I conceive it to be one: of tbe moat important questiona ever presented to' the cbu- sideration of thia or any other country. We all know, Senators, that ao far, thi^ ia the firat case under the Ameri-- can Conatitution in which the Senate haS been called upon aaa Court of Impeachment *to try the Chief Magie- trate of the land. The precedent which you are to forra. ,iu thid case, if our govCTument aurvivea the throea of revo- .lution, Fi^d contmues , uudiralnlehcd and undrapaired to remote posterity. jXtis oue which will last for a thouaand lyeacB., ¦ , , , . , The decision luade now Is one which will be quoted in , after ages, and will be of the very highest Importance. I maintain, therefore, that iu the view which has just been preaented, we have a right to call upon the Chief Justice |o act not merely as a presiding officer, but to act aa a judge ouithe conduct and management of thia trial. I have already noticed aorae atartling and extraordinary proposi tions made by the managers. Mr.,Manager Binghaiu Bays ithat "You are a rule and a law unto youraelf."' Mi-.' Managf^r Butler claims, that aa a constitutional tribunal, lyon are bound by no law, either statute or,eommoni- He states f (irthcr, that coramon fame aud cmTeUt history may be relied upon to prove facta,, that is to prove the Prefei-i dent's courae of adminiatration, and further, tliat the mo- mentoua question Is raiaed whetherithe Preaideutial office Wight Iq fact toexist. v. : ,i ' 'Senators, iu the whole course of American history I hay^ never heard or seen there such stai-tlirig propositions afl those which are lusiated upon bvthe honorable mana gers. They are dangerous to liberty; they are dangeroua to the perpetuity of the American Conatitutiou and the American Governraent. They would overthrow everv Ennciple of juatice aud of law that ie known in the civi- . zed world. It they were carried out to the fexteut which tbe honorable managers lusiat upon; I never heard or dreamed that in thia land of liberty, thia land of law, thia land where we have a written Constitution, auch docti'inca .would beaeaerted here. If Idonot misunderetand the language used, the learned raanagers think that this Se nate hf^B the power to aet aaide the Conatitution itself. Many of the moat eminent and learned writers In Eng land and in our country, when treating on the suhject of the distribution of powers between the executive, legisla tive and judicial branches of the government, have sounded the note of warning, that the danger is not to be apprehended from- the executive, not to be apprehended from the judicial department, .but is to be apprehended jrom fhe eucroachraents of the liouse of Commons,. of the Popular branch of the. government, and now we hear learned,, and able, and diatiuguiahedr'leadere of the Houae of Reprdeentatives, tbe, chiormen'of thia impeachment mail, argu lug that the Senate baa .tiie I right to judge and Hetprilnine for itself whether the proyiploBa, ofthe Consti- tift|on fihajl be maintained. Senators, that Ie notincon- lormity with. tbe healthful ddi^trine of tbO'. Araerican Con stitution. '.>,„¦.¦-'' ^i;^ie8oVereipn6y ofthe laud.is not inyour it is not in the Preelderit; It is not in the Chief Juetiee. . It ia in the Ame- ncau people, and they only can alter their Constitution. 3le iriBtrutoent which was 'pSrcliiiflpd,, with, tJie d tireasui'eof the Rbv'olutlou', ,an'd' M^^p wtihayfi ;nst6ined to regard with aactSd reyereupgi ,Seem» the President ofthe United States saying that he inteuded to support the Constitution of the country, it caused a uni- versal smUo In the Senate and galleries. That venerable instruraent, CBtabhahed by ,the wiadom of some of the pravBst and niost diatiuguiahisd men the woiid ever saw ; rihat''no>le i "blood arid t)r , — — .-- — .-,,-— been acbustbined to regard with aacted rev33renj3e,;9eflrti'» tohave"beeuBO oftentraniplfcd upon apd yioliUcd,in,,tlitB land, thjif when somebody ddreS to Irientigq, „ jt with some of the f^v^i-ence of ancient tljue^ It excites smiles of derisiori and laughter ; Gqd graut that a Tdbre, faithful pferitlmeut may anjtraate arid Jnaili^ tlieheartsof the American people, abd ^ha* 'we will (re turn— noW that the w'ar haa paaaed away, back, fo apirid- thing of the venerhtiori and reapect for thej ArhCricaJB Conatitution, and that we vvill te^Chour^ childrfen,whu are to come after ua, to love, and venbrate, and'ie|pect it as the popular safeguard of the country, which le not to be treated with anything abort of that reSpect and'vfeUera. tioui and high reverence with which we bave been ao- cuStoteedf to regard it. Butyqu are told , that ypu are to acton commbn fame. Ia it possible that we have cOflae to It is poeaible' that this great impeachment trIaVhM reached so lainfi and irapotent a conclusion as tha^t tl^e honorable raanagers are driven lo the necessity of msistlM before ybu that comraon fame is to be regarded , as cvf- dence by Senators? I hope it jwlll, nbt grate harehly ou your eare when I repeat the old aud familiar adage that ^'comman fame is a common liar." Are Senatora ofthe United Statee to try the chief executive magistrate on rumor the most vague, the moet'uucertaiu, tiie' moBt.unr^ liable. The glorv and boaet of Erigliab law and; of tfe Araerican Constitution are that we ' haye cqrtaiiu fi?ea priudiples of law, fixed principlea of evidence, which arc to guide and govern a trial ori thd investigation of caaes, ^Oneof the boasts of the eyftem of American independenea, and one of itagreateet perfections Is thia, that, when yoii go luto a court of justice there is nothing taken of.rumQi "orfame. ' ' , . .,' , ' There alts the judge. There the jury, and here; are the wltneaaee. They ariTcalled on to testffy ; they are, not«al. lowed to give iii evideuce hriyrumor. They are corapelled 'to eneak of facta withiu their own knowledge.' The caM is' Inveetigated iflowly, cautiously and dellb^erately ," Tm truth is a:rrlved at, not by any haety concluaiona,' btft upon ^Soleraritrial, and upon patient and faithful Investig^iabl^; and, when the reault ia found, it commands the ^rindeiicfl of the countrv, it secures the • apprbbatidn of the World- andit iaacqUieacedlni if it be in the higheat coaH,'« 'paesea in the hiatory df law, and go6a down to poaterity^^ffl a precedent to follow in all time to come; and KoreilU' -Seuato'rs, ia the greatest of libertiea of American people. ,> ^ I' hope" ybu will -pardon my giving utterance to* ona 'thtiUght, I willtaot aay that it ia original, but it ia a thougm which I'have frequently cheriehed and Indulged in— Mi(t the. liberty of 'the American people ia not that liberty •which ie defended In a writteu Couetitutiori ; is, not thai -liberty Which la enforced by Congrfeseional enactnicnt ¦But what do the American people think of it? I wixulaw God fhatJ they would thiuk of it a thouaand tiraea moroii^ tensely thau they do.' The only liberty which we now have, or ever have hod, ao far as American citizens iScbn. cerned. Ia that liberty which is enforced and secured in ¦the judicial tribunals of the country. We talk about out aocial equality, about our all ^eing free and equal.!-Itti -an Idle Bong, It is a faithless tole^ It is a vain and empty expreaaion. Unless that liberty and that equality -ija en forced in a court of justice. I have seen a thousand tim^ a poor aud humhle mau come into court, either aa a plain tiff or aa a defendant;' and I ihave seen an impartial judgt) -sit, blind to all external emotiouB, and, declaring the law, trying the case, and administering the joatice to that poor and 'Unfortunate man agaiust the. richest and the most powerful of thedand. . Thereis voifr \kw, there is yonr justice, there is'bnly liberty which is worth enjoyment, and to admit coinmoU faine and coramon ruriior before the highest tri^ipia} 'known to the ConBtitutibn aa a criterion of ' judgmCn^ ¦would he to overthrow tbe Constitution itaelfi'andrtd de^ etroy thatliberty which baa thus fir been enjoyed in the land. You are told that you are' to be "a laiw unto your^ selves".". Why, Senatoifa, if this be ao, theb yOur Couatllw tion has bfeen written id vain ; if thib be so, wien all the va lui&es Avhich swell the public libraries of the country'and the ^private libraries of lawyers " arid statesmen htive been written and published in Veiin. Then we would be brought back, in ira agination, to tbe days of the Spaniah InqiiieS tion. to sotpe of those dark, secret, Unknown tribunaw-in England, in Venice, In the Old World, where theprocefed- ings were hidden from mankind, aud wbo^e judgnieUtS were moat aWtul, and terrible, and fearful in theii' resulfaC. No, Senators, I deny that you are a "law unto yourf selves." I maintain th^t you havo a Constitution. 1 in- siat that you muat'look to parliamentary history, arid, tq Common law, not ' as an authoritative exposition of the dutiea incumbent upon you, but ua a guide to' enlighten your judaibent arid underatandlng. and thatyou must b6 governed^ by faioao great, eterual'prinCiplea of justice ftnd teflflon which have growp up With the growth of centiirleaj and which He at the very foundation of all the HbCrtid which we enjoy. This, Senators, is what I iriei&t ilthe true doctrine of the' American Cpustitution, and I Ifteiai that the wide latltudlanariani unauthorized iaterRi*eta^ tionoftheboporfliblB managere, CaUfind no .jristlficatiori anywhere, in view ofthe correct andet6Prikl'prini6iplebbf juatico incorporated in tho 'American 'Couetitutidh, kna which form part of the law ofthe load In evbry Statd: It thw be ao. it you are governed' by flo law, if 3'ou 'fare' a '!law. unto youraelvea." if the Conatitution has nothing to do with It, if comraon famd and common rumor are to govern and control here, then the Vory ^ath which yod took bere ia an oxtra-judical oath, not binding on tbe oon*' IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON." 197 jidanoe, and not binding according to the law of the land. Tbia would inyfeBt,the Senateof the United States with the moat dangerous power tliat ever-fras'lnveated in any tribu nal ou tbe face of the earth. ' ' ^Itwouldeoablp the Sonate of the United States, under me pretext of being a law ririto itaelf, to defeat the will of the American people, and remove from office any man who might be diBpleasing to it; to set at naught electious and to engross ipto its own bauds all the' powera bf the Country. Senatd^'s, I can conceive of no despotiaip worse *hap that— I cau conceive of.no dangers raenacing the berti^a of the American people' more awful aud fearful nan the dangers which menace them now, if this doctrine ufldajaiiy aort of favor in the mind or heart of auv Seuator fcrwnom It is addressed. Xdo not believe that the American Senate will, for obe moment, cherish any such do'ctrine. or act upon it iu th Blighteat degree. It would prostrate all the rafnparts of the Cqustitution, despoil the will of the American peorile, and.ehgroRB in the hands of the Congress of the TJuitedi Statea all the powers that wei*e iriteuded'to be limited and distributed among the differAit departments of the goveru ment. ¦ Another question, Mr, Chief Juetlco, and It is a question tf vbry Considerable intereBt, la as to what are crimes and fiaderiiearior^ under the Couatitutidri, I deeire tb remind .e'Seriate arid the Chief Justice of a prdpoeltjon which aa aseerted at an early period iu thia trial, by one of the learned managera. I regretted at the moment that Ihad not answered it, but it 18 in the r,e90rd aud it.ia not too^ I^te to give a paaaing remEfrk to it now. The honorable mtiuager made uee of the expression, that "The great piilee of the nation beats perturbedly. fitfully, pauses when we pause, and goes forward wheu we gO iiJnA'ard." And .we have been told' time and time agaiq, that the K^'orahle manage^ are acting for all the people of the spiled States. I, natty have Bomething td say about that, lenaibra, before I close my remarks which I have to make. lit 1 sjiall poetpone the coneidi^ratlon df that for the firesrat. The honorable managera told yon that "The piibjicpulae' beata perturbedly, that it pauses when you pauae; and goes forward when you go forwal'd." And ydd have been told, time and time agairij that the people out cf doors - are Anxioua for the conviction of the Fresi- dcfit of thp United Statea. .Permit me,' Mr.,Spuators,' to be guilty, ofthe ^nde,c'ohim almost of Sayipg one word about niiyself, and I am orily doing so by the way of stating my argument. ' ¦ .¦ - Inthe whole course of my profesalon al career, from the Ome leame firet a youngman to. practice law till the pris- seut moment, 1 never had the Irapudence or tlie [jreeuuip- tlon to talk to a judge out of court about any caee In which I was concerned. My arguraente before him have alwaye been made in court. I have had sufficient reepedt for the fiidet'cndeuce of the j Udgea before Whom I had the honor to pr act ibe toy ptfofeeeiou to takeitforgrarited that they were men of^ honor, men of intelligence, aud that they wouldnot hear any remark which I ahoUld make to them out bf doors, aud uot iu the ,prescnce of ray adversary. Bilt ffie doctrine here iS that the "[public pulse beats"— Ahl have'we come to that? ' Is'thia daee to be tried before the-greatest c'oijirt' in Chrlatendom, not upon tlie law, not ti^n the fivifteuce, not , uuder the iuatrrictibu of the CJtiief juatice of the United StateS; but to be trie'd on ctfmmqu riiriiOr; and 'Is'it to become inteiestiug^or to cease to be interesting, juat according to the beating of the' public pulse. Wny. Senatora; if it were not that I do uot, intend to eay one word designed to be offensive^ to any gentleman on tne other side, or to the Senate* I would aay that I ahnofft regard this aa an insultlng^ argument. But 1 do not make use of that expresaion. It la not my intention iu anything that I have said or may eay to- wound the sensi- bilitlea bf any oue, or to give justoffefiae tb anybody con- tfected-with this case, ' ¦ .' ^Biltyouaretold that you aroto try the case according to the public pulee. What an argument to advauce to the .American Senate 1 What an argument put forward In the American nation 1 Why^ all history teems with examples of' the gross, outrageoUB injustice, whioh haslDeeri done In crimiual trials. Trials In Pariiament;, and 'ti-iiilsiu courts of justice— aye, and our'own couritry has uot been exempt fitfom some notable instancea of it, .where public pl'amor was allowed to infiuence the judgment ofthe jtidges. Tho?e ifistancee that are'recorded in hiBtory, thoee iuatancea of blood and of murder, of outrage and'Wrong perpetrated iu the name of juetiee, are admonitioriS' tb us that the public pulseshould liave nothing to do with this trial. Senators, regarding every mau whora I address as a judge, ae a sworn j udge, allow me for one moiileut to call ybur attention to one great trial iu thie country, which I bppe in sorae of Ita principlea will bo applied- by you in tnw. There was a case which occurred 'in the earlv his- tol-ybf the Artierican nation where there, waa A great po- Warn as the judge went ftirward, audit Weut backward as the judge went, back^vard. , " ft was a great occaeiOn, It was one of the most iQua- triouB trials tbat ever occurred in Engliah or American jifrieprudence. There wae a great criminal who, vt^as mo rally guilty indeed; 'for sd he hae been held in the judgment ofpoaterity. Thero'-aa't the judge, one of the illustiiaus predecessors ofthe illoijtrioua and distlngulSeed gentleman who presides over y6ur deliberations now. There he aat, cidra, unmoved, uniawed by the public pulse, the very im- per^ridtion of juatice, having no motive under heayeu ex^ cept to administer ^e law^nd admiuiater it faithfully, JL°'i5lS^5°®F^*'*'?'l firaneaffto declarretbe lawlu the Kx?i ^o^i'ather thau In the fear of man. w««SlL^^i*'"^r*'*'^* "'.*" acquitted, and although there JhtinA^lPrSR"-^^^^' ''^I''".^^ ^e i-ef'-'i-enco to the acquittal, yet ^W?.fH?Zr^J°''*^-"^^*-*'*'»'^?«tioried the., ccrrectnesa of the judicial dotennin ation, and every American citlzeB who has any regard for his couutry, every judge and evIrS integrity will look back with veneration and reapect ^to theuanieand to the conduct of Johu Marshall,- and-so long as judicial independence shall be admired, eo long a* ^'?S\i'°^^-^"i?' ^H^^ be respected, the name of jShn Marshall will be eeteemed lu our own country, and tbrouKhout the civilized world, ae one of thebrighteet lui mmariee of the law, and one of the most faithful judgea thatever presided ina. coijrtj , It la true that clouda of darkneas gathered around him for the moment, but they Boon paeeed away: and were for gotten, , ,. " Like eome tall cliff that lifts ita awful form, Swells tb the gale, arid midway meets the storra. Though around ita breaat the roUing clouds are apread, ' ; Eternal aunehine settles on ita head.'' Such wae tho name and sqch the fame of John Marshall^ and God graut that bis aplrit may fall like; the mantle oi Elijah on the illuatrloua magistrate who presides^ and od every judge who alta here, so that you may eaten its iu- spiratioua and throw to the owla and to the bate all those* appeals to your prejudice, aud so thatyou may discharger your whole duty in the fear of that God to whom you ap-. peal. If I might preae euch a low, contemptible coueideraw tion on the miude of Senators,' if I might be pardoned for 1 the very thought which makea me eiirinfc oack almoafe with horror for myaelf, I would eay to Seuatore that, if you riee above thoae prejudices cast this clamor awaj* from your thoughta, do your duty like impartial men iu the fCai* of God and in no pitiful political .point of view, it would' make you Btand higher with your own nartyi aud with the whole world. Forgive me for such a die-' sertation, for really it ia beneath the dignity of the Senatd to entertain such, a thought for a moment. No, Sena tora, I entreat you ae judges; I entreat you as houora-' ble men, I, entreat you aa sworn officera of the la'w, and thus entreating you, I fiay that I. banish all auch thoughts' from my mind,, and Corae before 1 you as an impartial' tribunal, believing before God and my Country that ; you .will try to do your duty in this case, irre- epective: of popular clamor and regardleaa of opiuionff from without;! and wheu you, and I, and all of ua shall paaa away from the scene of human actions, and' when the memory of the stirring evente which dow agi tate the public mind shall alraost ne forgotten, I truet that future ages will look back with wonder aud admirationv aud with love, and respect, and honor, to the American Seuate for thb manner iu which it ahall have- diacharged Ita duty in this case. I trust, Senatora, that the result will be auch aa to coraraand the approbation, not ouly of your ' own consciences, not only of the State which you have the ; honor to represent, but the approbation of Him who Is a greater judge than you are, and— che approbation of 1 posterity. I A moat excellent rule of interpreting was adverted to by Chief Juetiee Marshall, in the trial to which I have re ferred. Burr's trial, speaking of the worda "levying war," as uEed in the' Coustitutiou, aaid that it was a techfiical term, and that it-must be considered as being employed in the Conatitution as It was employed In England, unlesa j the contrary waa proved by tbe-^ contract, or unleaa, it Waa iricomnatible with other parts of 'the Constitution, Ha held that It Ti'aa need In the same ee'nee in which It waa " ueed in England, iu the etatute of Edward the Third, > jfrora wliich it was borrowed. Now the worda treason-. (bribery, and crimes and misdemeanors,' Were Words juat aa familiar to the fr:amers pf <>thfvConstitii^ou as they are to us. ' ' ' ' . Ond of the honorable manageramade an argument here., to dhow that because Dr. Franklin waa' in London at the time of Warren Hastings' trial, that had a good deal to do with the proper mode or couatruiug the Araerican Consti tution ou the subject of the power of the Chief Justica. Thoae words were alraost as familiar to the lawyers at the timeof the formation of the Conatitution as they are to^ the lawyere and judges of the preaent day. ' ¦ , ' ' In one paaaage of Burke, he says that crimeB and miade-: meanora are almost eyuonymoua words, hut, jn another and further expreaeion of it. he undertakes to show, and dcfee ehow, that the w6rd''"crimeB" Is uaed in the een's'e of charges such aa uaually faU ' within the denominatiori of - felony, and that the word "miademeanor" la used iri 'the sense of those trivial and lighter offensea, which are riot punished with death, but wiUi fine or imprisonment. Now, what Is thie rUle of iuterpretation? It le-not neces-, - sary for riie to turn to authoritiea on thesubject. Words' are to be construed Iu the connection in which tbey are '. used and the sense of thoae beingof the sarae kiud. Ifl' correctly apprehend the law at the date of the forming of the Constitution, treason, by the ,law of En^aud, was a felony, puniahable withdeatn;, bribery waaraiademeanor ;not punishable with death, but puniahable with fine and* imprisonmeut. When the word- "cfimesi?* therefore, ^ia used In the Constitution, it IstO/be construedju the aame sense as the word ''treaaon." , :i.> „ '' It is to be understood as a felonious offense ; an offense punishable with death or impriaonment iu the.peuiten- tiary. The word ''misdemeanor," has reference toother offeusOB. It does uot mean simple asaault, for the ez- prepaion in , the Constitution Ja "high crimesand misde-' meanors"— ;higb crimes referring, -of^coutse, to such crimes' 193 IMPEACHMENT OP ASTDREW JOHN-SON.- ssiare punishable wl^ death, and high misdi^mearidi'e re ferring to such jnladeinCanorB as Were punishable by fipe and impriaorimout, uot to euch simple niisdemeanors as an assault. . ¦ ¦ '' ¦¦ ¦¦';-¦. What tben ia the argument upon that? Wbat is the trlie meaningof the words "brimeB'^knd misdemeanors" aa embodiedin theCourtitution'of the United Stales? One set of constitutioulats hbld that you are hot to look at the common law to asbertaiu the meaning of the words ''orimea and miedemeanota," but that vou are to look at the parliairientary law to ascertain. Now, so far as I have sny Knowledge oui the aubject, the parliamentary doee not define ordld never undertake to define what is the meaning of '''crimesajnd misdemeanors." What did the parllambntary law undertake to do? It undertook to punish not only Ita members', but citizens,' for offenses w^ich were regarded as offences against the governraent. Often- without turning the offender over to the courts, the parliament irapeached ¦ him, or proceeded agaiuat him ina manner similar to impeachment. But there was no definition, aa far as I know, d( "crimes and mifldeni eanora. " Thelidguageof the honorable manager Is in great part a law unto itself; but when framers of tho Couatltution incorporated these words in our charter, did they borrow them from parliamentary law, or did they get thera from Blackstone and Hall and from the> other writers on criminal; law iu England? They got them frorii' the common -law of England, and not frora the law of Eirliaraent. Theu "^'liat propositiou follows as a corollai',y om the premiaos? 1 have laiddown, if the premises be correeti why It follows Inevitably that the worda crimes and misdemeanors received Iu the aense In which-they are eraployed by writers on crimiual law in Englaud. " I doubt whether the laws., of the United States within the meaning of the Araericaai Constitution has a righ*. to create a new crime and a new misdemeanor from same- thing, which waanot known las a crime or aa a miade- meauo^atthe dateof the adoption of the Americiin Con stitution. J tbinkitisia matterof great doubt, to say the least of it. - , ' It ia, Mr. Chief Juatice, ou thesC and on kindred ques tions, that I respectfully enUmit that we h.ave a right re spectfully to demaud at the hand8:6f your honor a judicial exposition of the meaning of the Constitution. It will be for you, uuder your own, senae of duty, under your own coufitrivptiou of the powera conferred upou you by the Con^ stitulioja of our common country, to. decide for yourself whether, this respectful qnestion will be anawtiredornot, , Seuator YATES, at 4 oxlock, suggested that if counsel desired the Court might now adjourij. Mr. NELSON Intimated that he did feel somewhat fa tigued, but would proceed if the court did not now deaire to adjourn. Senator YATES submitted bis motion and tbe court tiiereupon adjourned. , < PROCEEDINGS OF FRIDAY, APRIL 24. JVt the opening of the court, ibis morning, the Chief Justicie stated that the first business in order waa the con sidera tiori of the' follovring order, offered yester day by Mr. Grimes :— , , , ' Hour for Asdentbling:. Ordered, That hereafter the hour fdr' the- meeting of th© Benito, aitting_ for the trial of impeachment of Andrew Jphuson, President, of the United States,. Shall be 12 o^clock M. pi .each day, except Sunday. . i The order was adopted by the following vote ;~ YEAS-Measrs.. Anthony, Davis, Doolittle, Fesaenden, liowler. Grimes, Henderaon, Hendricka, Johnaon, Mc Creery, Morgan, Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Patteraon (Tenu.), Earasey, Saulsbufv. Trumbull, Vau Winkle. Vickera! ^yllley, Yates~21. , . NAYS-Mesfira. Conjclins,. Cbnuess, Cragin, ( Edmunds, Harlan, Howe, Ppnicrpy, Sprague, .Stewart, Sumuer* Thayer, Tipton, Wilsoii— 13. Reportei's and tlto Final Deliberations. ... Mr. EDAJUNDg then offered an amendment to admit ' the ofucial reporters to report, the speeches ori the final deUberation of the Senate, whicii was objected to by a number, and weut over under the, rulea,' Mr. Nolsou's Arffu^ent ContSnaed. Mr. NELSON then proceededwitli Ids argument as fol- ^ Mr, Chief Justice and Senatora:— In the course of my ' argument of yeaterday, I alludtid to certaiii opiuiona ex pressed by one of the managera In a report, to whioh his naineia affixed, made to the Houae of Representatives. Lost any misunderstanding ahould ariae, I deaire to state, inreeai-d tethat portion which I adopt ae my argument, ciiat 1 qo not conaider that thero ia any inconeietency in the.poBJtion which the honorable manager aaauraed iu hid report to tbe Houae of .Kepreaeutatives and tho position which he has , aesuracd here in arguriient. If I under stand the honorable manaesr'fe position, while he luhietB, ae wl understood yeeterdsty,, that yOu are to look to the common law, and not inerely the law of Parljli^ ment, in order to aBcertain the uae of th6 .words criffieta;dd' misdemeanor In the Conatitution, yeti if I correctly com. prehend hia argument, he ipeists tnat it ia competent for' Congresa to make a crime or miademeanor under the Cpii; stitution, and that auch crime o!^ nli»dem6anor is'an jltti-' peachable Offense. If I correctly understand the gentil' man's poaition, I hope neither he nor the court will tai^ underatand rae when! call attention to those parts of t^0, gentleraan's argument which I rely upon, because tl^ ^,; gUmeute heJnakds atfemu'ch' iriore f oifcible thananylcajj, hope to make, , ¦ *¦ .^ \ m .., >-j.i Mr. Neleon quoted from the iriTpority report of Mr,,Wilr, son, now bne ofthe managef-sj made in November, xm. m a former impeachment investigation, and continUett:„r corae to a point now which 1 have already endcavoteuM make my argument, namely, that the definition given W : tne honorable manager who opened the argument ia 'nbt a; correct definition. 'That opening, as the Senatfe Will ra in ember, was accompanied by a very carefully pretofl and learnjjd argument on the part of Mr. Lawrence, to Which reference was made by the houoraale manager. It ia this~"We define, therefore', an impeachable high criiiitf dr misdemeanor to be pne In its nature or consequences subvereive of some fundamental or eBsentiali)rlnqipla of government, or highly prcjudicialto the public ihta. takt, and thia may conslet bf a violation of tha Constitutiou, of law, and official oath, or, ,of dutv by/ an act toriimitted or lomitted,. ,or i withoutviolating positive law by ihe abuse df.revbht-; tionary povpiera from .improper .motives, or for anyltil- proper puf-posei" Now, ilydu^go to the laW of Parliabifflat for a definition ot treason or other high crimee, as I have already aaid, you will not find it. If you will not find :» if you go to to'the law of Parliament for the purpoae of ascertainingWhatia an Impeachable offenae, then you go to a law that is hot iu foi-ce in this country at all. Evfiiy BpecieaOf offense which Parliament chooaes to conaidjer.aB' Buch, w^s declared by statute or , waa the adhject matter of Impeachment by Commons or the Houae-of Lords, Their form of government Is different from buTs, Perabfla were tried In England for very slight and very trivial offeuaee, aud Beyero punishraents. Were m* flicted ori various occaaibua in the progress of Enjjliflh iifr toi-v, upon pcrsouB who, were 8,uppoBed to have becri guilty of, such Offenses, Thia process 0f impeachment i| 6m o^ which we have not anVriccoiint in hietory eofaraai have been able to examiipe' the' subject. It is true, astji^ 'gentleraen has aaid, that five hundrdd yeara ago the aulj-, ject vvaa intrdduced intp the, English Parliament, aadthfey considered it then, ahd claimed that thellouse of ComiiiOp| had jurisdiction over thie subject in conaequence of..^> law of Parliaraentj but how that law of ParliafliiM. aroee, where it , originated, neither the House of,,'Lbrda, nor Mr. , in his elaborate report arid argurilen't,, ¦ iu the House of Comfnpns undertook to Btate, It firdee from what they assumed to be u^age, and if you go to Parliaraent in order to determine that iu tlua country then you would be obliged to puriiah anything aS ati offense, without any authority whatever. , .Mr. Nelaon read fromiho hiatorV of (ieBrltlahCoUBti- tution, instanceB, of punishment In JEngland, by the pillory aud by whipping, at the cart's , tailrfor trifling onepBeSt; which, he said, if the declaration ofthe managers wei'fl correct, would be impeachable offenaea. He continuiGdi ¦. you can, only look to the coramou law for the purport of ,ascertaiuimg the definition of high crimes and mifr demeanore. 'Mr ,Story, 1 know, ' aays, in bia work on the ConBtitution, . that . in ,one caae it, was aettled in thia country that the term "c'riiii^B q^d miademeanors' V diduothavethe.aignificatiou wMch 1 ingist upou, but.st the same time he aaaerta that there is a contrariety of opiuion on this subject araong interpreters of the Conati tution, and that diatinguiehed gentlemen, as I underatand him, does notrcgard the question as being by a^uy meiUiB' 'finally aud aut^orativelv aettled, ao that m order to a«;er-, tain what are impeachable crimes and mlademeanora, it la inecesaary to go to the cPmraon law for adehuition ot what' ia anirapeachable offenae in this country, within the mean- ,ing of the Constitution as a crime or miedemeanor. You must ishow that it waa knowu aa a uph at the time when theCouati- [itution vvas adopted; in other words, I respectfullv maintain > that Congreee haa no power to create a crime different itt it^ nature from crimes aud lidademeanorB known andean- ' IdBrStood to be auch at the time Of the adoption of thfe Cou* , jsntutipn. Briefiy and imperfectly as thie argument has ;pS?Sj preaented, , I will not undertake to dwell upon it liiVthdr. I deeire, although itisnot exacth' in the drderi ,which,I had prescribed for my remarks, to call the attiSii- tion ot the Senate to some obaervatloris made by the honbr-, able manager who addreaaed the Senate yesterday ; and an Order that there may be no niisun'dei'stauding as to the , observationa, to which I wiah to call your attention, I will !d^t? * paragi-aph from that geritleimiui^s apfeeph of yesteii- Mr. Nelaon quoted a -portion- 'bf Mr. Boutwell'S ari- gUment charging that tfie President Ib a man of vlbleht paesions and unlimited ambition, and that hfe eeeka to use_ aiibs-ervient and corrupt men for hia oWn parppBea, and then abandons thera. And alludirifi'to hia treiflneni of Judge Blabk, aayinSi that, though,. annpunced aTthe , •1 resident's courisel, he bad never appeared, he continued^ --It 18 true, Se^affbrB, , a. source of much erabarroaalrieal , how to Bpeak,in rpj^ly, to, the accuaatlons which hfl*e:-thUB , been prefei^ed ig^irist the President of the United States., ¦ it would aeem.iromthe description given by the honor- IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 199 able raanauer, that the very presence of tbe President Would breed a contagion, aa if alinoet the yery atriio- sphere of his presence would produce death, but I very re- BpectftiUr insist on the statement of a fact, which I will make to you m a moment, and which, I think, is called for by a reference which baa boen made to Judge Black, to Bhow that injustice has been done, unlnteritlonally, by the manager in the language he haa uaed. I regret tbat thia topic has been introduced. I am not aware that I ever aaw Judge Black In riiy life until I met bim in consultation in the Prepiddut's Council Chamber, and in all the interviews we bad our intercourse was very pleasant aud agreeable, and it is with feelings of embarraaameiit that under theae circumatancea I deera It neceaaary to say anything upon this aubject at all; but in order thatyoh may underatand what I have to say about it, I desire to refer the Senate te a iirief stateraent which I have prepared, and which, on account of the delicacy of the subject, I chooae to put in writing, and, although I have not hadthO tirae which I could have deaired to pre pare it, it will comprehend all the material facts ofthe case. You will understand that I do not propose to give a full atatement, but a synopaia of what mav be called the Alta Vela case. A mere outline will be aufhclent, ' Having given this outline of the facta in relation to the ease, Judge Nelson prdcaeded to say that after thq actiou inthe matter which he*bad recited, while Jude:e Black was one of the counsel for the President, he had an inter view with the reapondent In thia caee, urging upon him to take "action in reference to the rightsof citizena ofthe United States upon that island and the Bending of an armed veeeel to take posaeesion of it. The President having declined to do ao. Judge Black declined to appear further as counsel iu thia caae. Such, said he, are the facts in relation to the withdrawal of Judge Black, and so far as tbe Preaident of the United Statee is , concerned, tbe **bead and front oi bis offending hath this extent, no more." '. It is not neceaaary that I should cenaure Judge Black, or make'any imputation upou him or any of the honorable sriauagors. I navo uo reasons to charge that any of the managers are engaged oi' Interested in it. The presumu- tion is, that the letter which I read, which waa signed by him, was ei^ed as such letters often are, by members of Congresa without any personal intereat inthe matter to which they relate. Judge Black thought it his duty to press this claim, and now Senatora, I ask you to put your selves in the place of the President of the United Statea, If his action in thia matter is made a subject of accusation againsthlm. Ask youraelvea how the Preaident must feel in relation to it. lam'Willing that this subject should be spread before the country, aud that eveu hia enemiea spould underatand what has beeu bia couduct and hia mo-^ tivea dn this matter. . I wish to. call your attention particularly to the fact, tbat all these transactions took place before the impeach ment proceedings were coraraenced, and that the charges have beenmade since, Anotber fact in favor of the Presi dent is, that while I do not make any implications agaiust tjtie hnnororable managers, theae recommendatlone to which L have referred, were signed by the honorable gen tlemen whom the Houae of Kepresentativea have iutruated with the duty of managing the impeachment against him. Let me suggest a eiuglo idea with regard to the impeach ment. It the Pro.-ideut went to war-with a weak and feeble power and gained an ialand It would aeem that he didso in fear of the managers, and in fear of losing the bleb aud valuable servicea of Judge Black. If he refuaed to do what they called ^^upou him to do, there wae danger thatjie would exasperate Judge Black, i^d it was under the^e idelicate circumstancea that this queation waa preaehted to the Preaident. He was between Scylla and CTiarbydls. In formiug hia deterraination iu regard to.the matter.'UO matter which way he might de termine, hia integrity might bo aseailed. But the honora ble managera must know the Preaident less familiarly than I do. if they suppoaed .that he could be driven or forced by any consideration to do what he thought wrong. He is a man of a peculiar disposition. By careful management he mav perhaps bb led, but it Is a delicate and difficult matter to do that which, wit^ his peculiar disposition, no man under Heaveu can compel bim to do : go one inch beyond what he believes right ; and although he knew that by rejecting this claim he might raise up eneraies ; and although he was well aware that a powerful infiuence might be brought to bear against him on hia trial, and it might be trumpeted over the land, frdm on^ end to the other, that- Judge Black had aban- djaued hira on-account of his belief iu his guilt. Although the Pret^idbnt knew'that a black cloud would be raised, againathini, he waa prepared to, aay that "though in that clotid' weris thunders charged With lightning, let them of Conaequencea, andhe was detennined not to be dnreu td-'any act whicu he believed to he wrong ; deterrained not to use the whole power of the United States agamst a little fedble power that had no capacity to resist. He waa de terrained not to be used as an inatruraent m the handa of anybody, or auy set of men under Heaven, to ^arry on a speculation which ho beheved might be carried ou with dt^hdnor to the govemment or (hagrace to himBelf, if he conaented to be concerned In it. I ask you, then, to weigh Mb conduct, to allow au impartial 3udgment,,and look this Btatement of facta In the face.^and pronounce upon it as you bave to pronounce Upon this impeachment, when you ceme to look over the whole of tbe President's conduct. I thmk you will find that, like tbe grave charges presented by the honorable manager ycBterday* they will vaniah ftway, and "like the baseleaa fabric of a viaion, leave not k wreck behind.'* : ;. Xtruet that the concluaion.of this trial will be such tbat^ although the Pi-eaident is now pasalug through the fleTy jurnace, and although he is for every act being called tft au account, he fears not the invcBtlgatlon ; he challenges the utmost Bcruliny that can be made into his conducti While, as I have said, he burls no defiance at the Senate; and doee not desire his counsel to aay a word that al^bll be oft'ensive to this body, yet he defies hia eneraies as he aU Ways has doue, atid appeals to his own motivea of pur^ and honeety to vindicate hira in this case, as In every otien Iristead of beiuf; a matter for accusation agalnet the Prea dent of the United Statee, in the view tbat I entertam of it, and in the view which I thinif. every high-minded man will entertain, hia conduct will elevate him a headand shouldera taller in the e.Btimation of everv high-minded mau, aud itwill Le regarded as ^oue of themoetworthy acta of his life, that he could not be coaxed nor driven mto ^ wrong act. ThiH "Alta Vela" affair is referred to, as though the Preaident had done aomething wrong. What wroug did be do? How did auv failure result from Judee Black's re fusal to act aa counsel? Did tho Preaideut discard Judge Ulackj and tell him be did not want hirii to appear auy more iri hia caae? No, eir; it was upon hiB own voluntary motion thaj; he withdrew from thecaae. If the Preaident has done him any injury, he knpwait, but hia counsel know It not. I leave It for the judgmeitt of the worldto determine how riiuch justice there is in the accuaatioua which are so strongly made agaiuat bira. Senators— Allow me tb call your attention to another f paragraph iu the Speech of the honorable manager Who ast addrpseed you .(Mf*. Boutwell). It is not mypurpoae or intention to endeavor to auswer at length that able and carefull V-prcpared argument which the •honorable manager has made. ImuBt leavp notice of that to those who are to follow me on the side of the Preaident, but there ia another paragraph, which reads In theae words:- "Havmg* ind ulgea hisCamnetiri such freedom of opinion wheu he consulted them In reference to tho conatitutlouir tility of the bill, and having covered hiraaelf and them with public odium by ita announcement, he now vaunts their opiniona. extorted fay power and given iu aubaervi- ency, that the law itaelf may be violated with irapunity.** 'Thia," aaya the President, "is the exerciee of ray con stitutional right to the opinion of ray Cabiuet." **!/' says the President, "ara reaponaible for my Cabinet." Yea, tho Piesident ia rcepoualble for the opinione and conduct of men who give euch advice as Is demanded, and give it iu fedr and trerabling, leat they be at once deprived of their placea. "Thia is. the Preaident'a idea of a Cabinet, but It is an idea not in harmony with the theory of the, Conatitu tiou," In another place the gentleraan apeaka of the mem bere of the Cabinet as beiug aerfB. "It waa the advice ol serfs to their lord, of aervautB to their maaters, of slaves to their owners.*' I desire, Senators, to refiresh your recollection, by call ing yom' attention to th.e extract frora the President'a mesaage, which was put iri -evidence upon the part of tbe prosecution, dated December IS, 1867, and I wiah to state. in reference to this message, aa well as all other documents signed by the Preaident, that if any rule of law is to obt tain in thie high and honorable' tribunal, it Is that when we put these dncuraeute before the Seriate they may be permitted to apeak as witnesses. They do uot try to diacredit this document. I regretted- that we were not permitted to introduce certain members of the Cabiuet to prove certain atatements of tiie Preai deut: yet, upon sober, eecond thought, I am Incliuedto the opinion that probably the Senate had eettled the ques tion exactly right— fhat it vras unneceaaary for ua to intro duce membera of the Cabinet or introduce their teatiraony to sustain theae atateraeuta bo loug aa they are. uot im pugned ou the other side. I will read the extract from page 138 of the reported proceedinga :— "Thia wae not the first oceaaion ou which Mr. StantoUi In diecharge of a pL'hlic duty, waa called upon to conaider the provisiona of that law. The Tenure of Oifice act did not paaa without notice. Like other acts, it wae eent to the Preaideut for approval. Aa ia our cuetom, I aubraitted its coneideratiou tp my Cabiuet for their advice upon the question whether I ahould approve it or not. It waa a grave queetiou of couatltutioual law, in which I would, of couree, relv moet upon the opinion of the Attorney- , General aud Mr. .Stauton, who bad oi^ce been Attorney-, Geueral." Nor can such words be unnoticedas tbehonorahle mana- ieerhaBuacd—"hecallB hia seria around ,him." The Preai- ;deut eayB:~"Every member of my Cabinet advised me that' the propoeed law wae unconatitu tional. All epoke without doubter reaervation, but Mr. Stanton's condemna- tiou of the la\v waa the moat elaborate and emphatic. He referred to the conatitutional provisiona^^^the debates ia Congreaa, eSpeciallv to the apecch of Mr. Bixchauan when a Senator ; ' to decisiona of the Supreme Court, and.to the usage from the beginning of the government through every succeaaive admlnlatratron, all concurring toeatab- lish the right of removal as v^stpd by the Conatitutton iu ,the President. " To all theae he added tbe wrfghtof bia ovra deliberate judgment, and adviaed me that it Was my duty to defend the pbwer of the President from ueurpation, aud to veto thelaw." Thereis the plain, unvamlBh^d statement of the President of tbe United States, uncontradicted by any lone at allj a etatement that we offered to verify by the introductiou of membera of tbe Cabinet as witneseea. We ^pp IMPEACHMENT OP AJSTDRBW JOHNgON. offered to prove that every word— at lea^t the substance of bvery word— contained in that paragrAj)h df the meeeage lifras correct, had we been permitted to introduce the mem- bers of the Cabinet, but o'ur teBtimony was riot admitted; and Ina!^much aa it was uot admitted, since this raesaage was introduced bythe proaecution and we offered to prove xt, I aaaume ae au indiaputable fact on thia occasion, that Mr. Stanton, about whom the world ia to be aet on fire now, adviaed the Preeident that thi^' Tenure of Office act, about which euch a great crv has *been raiaed iu the land was' unconstitutional, aud that it was hia duty to veto it I never saw Mr. Stantou to my knowledge, but if I were in hia place, I think I would say.^s sorae one elae has said, •.'Save me frora my friends, and I will take care of ray ene mies.'* I think if any riian ever had reason to exclaim, "Save me frora my friends," Mr. Stanton hae had reason to do BO, and to exclaira, "Save me frora the disgrace to any independent ofiicer of the loWii^meftn, ddbased. merce nary motivea by which auch an oflficer may be influenced. But us it ia a sort ot a family quarrel, T Will not interfere any further," One other thing iu regard to Mr; Stauton; I will ahow you that before he adviaed the President that this law was uncoui-titutional, he advised him ou another matter which does not atand iu the category of his opinions as a meraber of Preaident Johnaon'e Cabinet.' ^ On the 3d of March, 1865, Mr. Stanton addref*eed a letter to hie ExceUeucy, Andrew Johnson, Vice Presidentelect, in which he saye that the War Department had learned With admiration- the firraness and faithfulneaa with which he had discharged hia duties as Military Governor of Teu- neasee, arid that hia noble aud patriotic aervlcea were duly hppreciated, and congratulating hira on being called. frora the arduous and trying dutiee which he had ao honorably perforraed, to the aafe and eaay dutiea of civil life, assur- nig hira that he wae about to assume the dutiea of Vice President at the doee of a period of unparalleled trial, ifter having brought peace and safety to his own Statp. " Three flhbrt years have elapaed siuce the letter by'Mr, Stantou indorsing the Preaident of the United Statee was Written. Ihave referred to it for the purpoae of Bhowing you that when I spoke of the services of the President, I was only speaking iu regard to matters for which at that time be received the high encomium of Mr. Stanton— for flCrvicea in behalf of the Uuion for -whidh'he bad not nest. tated fo expose eveu his owu life. It ia hardly conceivable that iu the short period of three years a gentleman of whom the Secretary of War apoke iri high terma of commendation, which I nave read to 'you,' should- bpcorae the monster, the tyrant, the usurper, the wicked man, whora he ia reprcaented tb be upon the other eide. Mr. Stanton rune through thia whole trial. He is, I believe, in eight of the eleven articles of impeachment. "Hia name is almost everywhere, aud you have him in two rela tiona. Firat, as ludoraing the President, Iu the' worda which I have read to you, and alao indorsing the' Presi dent'a action wheu the Civil Tenure bill waa pdased, in March, 1867, and if adifferenPe of opinion grew up after warda, and unkind feelinga existed between them, arid if therewas a losa of corifideuce on the part of the Preeident, and if their relations towards each other became leaa har- monioua than they had been before, all I have to eay afeoUt it is, that it furuiahea no ground of irapeachrnent; nbneiu- the world; nor should it, inthe Eligheatdegre^, affect his Character or motives, * ' ' . . ; . - There ie one other thine, before I reauipe the considera- tion of the various aftldlea of impeachment, that I desire, SenatorB, to call your attention tb, audthiat is this same Jiroceeding which was had iu the House of Eepreaenta- uves upon the subject of irapeachrnent. I know not how it strikes 'the rainda of Senators, nor how it irapreseeB the minda of the people of thecouritry ; but one of the strangest of things in the hiatory of oiir government la that these ar ticlea of iinpeachment ahbuld be ,gotten rip agaiuat the President after twelve montha* examination of thia 'mat ter, and that ebargea againat hira, of which I will speak after a' while, ahould be founded upon acts that were done iur'eference to the Thirty-ninth Congrese. ' Is it riot pasaing strange that if the President was guilty of the acte charged, against hira, and if he hae done acts worthy of irapeachraent, that the Thirty-ninth Congress tbok'Uo notice of it ; and that after, .that CPugrese is de funct, passed out of existence, its meraory and name gone into history, ie it not strange that another Congrese should take up offeneea againat that Congreea and make them matters of grave accusation against the President? Oue of the chargea preaented against him by the Houae of Re preaentativea ie, that- he hae beeu guilty ofan intent to subvert the government of the United Statea. rReading the firat article of impeachment.] ' Tho fact ie, limy me mory serves me aright, and I have not beeu miainformed, the House of Representatives, wbpn they considered these articles referred to— • >¦ ^ Tho Chief Juatice was compelled to ,call the Senate to! order, aa it waa imposBlble to near tbe speaker ou account of the converaation In the hall and gallerica. Mr. NELSON, reaumed:— The House of Repreeentativea ', refused to entertain these articlea of impeachment agaiust the Preeident by a aolemn vote, and If tnero were any law in thiatribuual, ae the gentlemen say there ie, aot unlesa it be that law of Parliament which they rely upon, and which amounte tto no law at all. If there was law here, or any application of law by analogy of the laW,' X would avail myself of the doctrine of eatoppel, which waa sp learnedly expounded hy one ofthe learned manogera, and liwould inaiat that the Houae of Repreaentativea, with all du&reference and reepect, aif ter having ' voted down this charge that the Preaideutbad slandered and maligned the Congrese- of the United Statea were itoiiped raaking any accusation .ofthat kind agaiust the Preaident now. But I hope I may say, without, offenae, that still the _3riate of the .^United Btatea, sitting here as a judlcisj tribunal, con look to the circumstancea under which these chargea were pr^feri'cd, without any disrespect whatever to the House of Repreaentativea; and whenyou go te the circumetancea under which these charges of iinpeaehmeut were preferred, you have, at least, evidence that they were done without anv gi'eat amount of deliberation in the House, and possibly Under the infiuence of that exciS ment which great aseemblies, ae well as private iat&- vidual:*, are liable to experience, and which thiaaroemb^ of grave, reverend signora. who are irapanellpd here'under the Constitution, mav look upou and must regard in co?>. sidering the facta in the case. , ' j^. when articles of impeachment were ipreaented againat Wairen Hastiuge, iu England,' they wore the ¦subje{^ of long and anxioua debate in the Parliament before they were preSentcdi and Seuato^'B,, I maintain thatit ia your province and your duty to look to this fact, and not to give the aame iraportance to , accusations made under more careful deliberation, esnocialiy wheu the, Houae of Repreaentatives had a flhort time before acquitted the Preeident pf a, large nurnber, of the chargcB pre sented agairist'him. Iu the uuftnimoue report,; presented bv the coramittee under these circumatances. it will be,no disparagement tb the House, , no dieparageinenf tO; ouraelves to look at the, ifaot that these chaTgett were haatily drawn up, andif iipon a sober view, of the facta you should believe that theee chargescame tp you in atleast a (luestionable shape, so far aa toe clrcumstaneeB under which they wpre adopted a;'e concerned, it will be no reflection upon the House should you so decide, any more thau itwould were a private" individual only, cob-i cprricd. As the House of Representatives ia coraposed of men of fleah and blood like youraelves, I trust theywill. conaider it no disparagement to aay, that they were acting under the imp U lae of reeling, aud what,, ppon aecond aoher thPught, -they Would not do over again. , We all kuow human nature ,well enough, at> least in otir ovKU p,er8ona and charactera, to kuow that when we act in paaaion, iu hate or in excitement, we are apt to do thing^ which, upon reflection, we have reason to regret. And theae actions, while thev aredn a great meaaure excusable on account of the haate and passion in which they are co.ramltted, ypt they are actions which do npt cppimand tlie aarae power and Infjuence in aocletytbat th^ low the precedents of other cases, yoi;. will be rpcruiredto vote upon each one of theae articles separately,, and WiU have to form your judgments and opiniona on each in a separate way. Now, in regard to the first, article of im-. peacliment, it may not be out of place to look to thatar- tjcle as it is presented, and to atate very briefly the articte' itself. I do uot propose to go through all the verbiage ofi that article, nor to repeat all that is said in the anawePt but the principal features of it are tljese:— . i- i=i ' The Speaker here quoted the article in substance, and the answer of the President thereto, and then continued:— Now, one word or one thought, Senators, before enter-r ing upon the consideration of tbia first article; which I' cpuceive ia applicable to all the articles. Indeed, much oV what we have to aay ou tho firet article applies to albthe* other articles, and involvea, to aome . extenti a necessary repetition, but I ahall endeavor, as far aa.. I can, to avoid such repetition. Now all these articlea of impeachment,! or nearly all all of thera, charge a removal. If you follow the precedents pf trials of impeopbinent whicn wc have already had in the United States, iand eepecially if you follow the dCciaions bu th,6 Britian Par- ' liaraent, there ought to be something substautiaUntbe! aaticlea that are preferred against a man. Now, what is it that ia provided for by the Civil Tenure bill? Why, it is ¦ removal of a peraon, and that ib what la charged in each oneof what I may, for want of better work, call the "counta" of thie indictment. Now, Senatora, if you follow tbe law, and tbe rules' Of law that bave beeu adopted in other caaea, and look to them as belns a precedent to some extent, although not binding and obligatory to all intents and purpoaea -aa iudicial procedurea, what is the familiar rule of thelaw? ,'J,hcre,i8 nota judge or lawyer in this Seriate, who.doea not know that in every law book that has boen written for two hundred years, a diatlnction ia taken between a , crime and au attempt to commit a crime. The dlatinctiona ia just as broadand, wide aa Pennsylvania avenue? , ' • Why, according to statutory regulations almoat every- WherBt and even according to the common law, murder is ope thing, and an attempt to commit murder is another , and a different thing. Burglary la Pne thing, and an a1^ tempt to commit that offeuee is another and a different; , thing. Now I ask with all earnestncaa pf this Senate, as'-V lawyers and judges, if thedofctrino contended for by.the i ildarried managers be the true doctrine, that tbe civil , Tenure bill is coustltutlorial, and that the President has ¦ no ^ower to rPmove except Witb the advice and consent o$ IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 201 theSenate, then, Senatora, I ask you how Ib it thatthe President cau be found guilty of removiug Mr. Stantou frora otlice? Taking the premiaes of the honorable gentleman to be correct, when there waa no removal at all, but there waa an attempt to remove ; there is no aort of dollb^but there waa rfo removal from oflice at all; and vou do Uot bring It withiu the Civil Teuure bill unless you have a caae, Pi i-emoval. It ia uot a cahc of removal, but, if their con stmction be true, it iaacaeo of an atterapt to remove a ferson from office ; eo that it ia inipoaslble for the honol'a- le managera to' eaeape the dilemraa which the uature of . tbeir case places thom In ou the first count. I desire to uiaiutaiu briefly three propoaltions. Firet, that the Teiiure of Oflice bill la unconstitutional and void. ' Second, that if tho civil Tenure of Otlicy bill ia not uncou atitutional; it doea not erabrace auch a cate aa the removal of Mr. Stanton; audthird,.if both theee propoaitioue aro erroneous, that thePreeidont acted with a, laudable and honest motive, and ia tiierefore not guilty of auy crirae or inlademeauor. , , . *- , On the first proposition aS to the riuconstitutiobality of the Civil Teuuro of Oflice bill, ftsit has not boen, done al ready iu behalf of the President,! avail inyeelf -of the oc eaaion to remind vou of ctertairi thiuga which occurred iu the debates of 1789, although I kuow they are farailiar, probably, to every Senator I addreee, yet I regard theee thinga as material and Important to our line of defenee. and at the risk of wearying the patience of the Senate, I must ask tho privilege of presenting briefiy the vieWa I cut tortaiu on that subject. In the House debate which occurred on the 16th of June, 1779, ou the bill for eatabliehiug au Executive Departmeut. to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Wlllte moved to strike out the words "to be removable from oflice bv the President of the Uuited States;" He . advocated this because the Senate had the joint power of appointment. Hie views were austained by Mr. Sraith, of Bouth Carolina; Mr. Huntitigton, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Jack- sou, Mr. Gerry and Mr. Livermore,' aud were opposed by Messrs. Benson, Amea and others, as ia shown in Seatori's Debates, vni. 1, pp. 473 f o 608. Mr. Madison said, in that debate, it waa 'evidently the intention of the Constitution that the first magistrate should be reeponeiblo for the Executive Department, and that Po far, therefore, aa -.-re do not make the officers who are to aid him in tho duties of that department responsi ble to hira, be la not responsible to the country, baaing hia argumeiit mainly on the conatitututional proviplon that tbo Executive power ehall be veeted iu the Preaident. Mr. Sedew ick eaid if expediency ia at all to be con aidered, gentlemen will perceive that thia man ia ae much on iufitruineut iu the hands of the President as the pen ia the instrument of the Secretary in correappnding with .foreign courta. If, then, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs isthe mere luatr ument of the Preaident, we would sup pose, on the principle ef expediency, this officer ahould* be o6pendeut upon him. ' 1 aay it wonld bc abaurd in the highest degree to continue sucb a person iu office contrary to the will of the Preei dent, who is responaible that the busineaa be conducted with propriety and for the general iutereat of the nation. Upon that donate I merely suggest that it states plainly tho affair aa it exists netween the Preaident 'and Mr. .Stantou, and aa this debate occurred eooU after the adoption of tbe Constitution, and that several gentlemen who had participated Iu the formation of the Constitution— among them Mr. Madison, one of the ablest men who ever wrote on thia subject, nnt even ex cepting Alexander Hamilton— also took part, in this (de bate. We muat give it the highest conaideration, and if there ia to be anything In tho doctrine of tbe law. which is applied to overy other case, that when a decision of a legal gueation is taade, that decision should etand;aud if there be anythlngin thp, doctrine of State decisions, 'I maintain, Senatora, that au opiuiou which,, so far as I know, has never been controvei'ted at auy time except ' during the time of Andrew Jackson, and an opinion which has stood for nfiiarly eighty yoars, is not an authority, theu Pean conceive of nothing that Is sufficieut to betaken as a precedent. ', - ¦ If, according to the English law, a man ie protected In his real estate after sixty years' possession, aud If, aa in my own State, eevcn years* adverse posaeaaion givea a good title, why mdy we not argue, and argue with propriety, before the Araerican Senate, that thia cjueetiou wae settled eighty years ago, and when the decision has never been Controverted until the present time, except ou the occafiiori to which I have referred, I do maintain, Senatora, as earnestly aa I am capable of "maintaining, any propositiou, that that decipion is an authoritative conclu sion, and ia on principle binding and obligatory \on thia Senate, and that you muat follow it ou the eame principle that judges are In the habit of following judicial deter minations in reference to the righta of property which have fb^ulong acquiesced' it, and have becomo principles of ''Mr. Nelson tben went on to quote the argument made by 'Mr. Sedgwick, in the debate iri the House of Representa- ftivea, in 1789, wheu the subject of the President'a power to remove civil oificers waa nnder diacuasion, in which ar gument Mr, Sedgwick had stated many of the reasona whytlifipower of removal muat be left in-the Preaideiit. Among Those reasona were the following :— That tbe Preaident might be fully convinced of the moral or mental unfitness of thp person to hold' his position, but could not in one case out of ten bnng sufficient evidence thereof, before tho Senate: that under those- circumstancea It would be wroug to saddle auch au ofiicer upon tho Preai- 14 dent againat hia will, and that the Preaident could, not be beld reaponaible unleaa he'had control over the oflicer. Never, ar\id Mr. Nelaon, had mnre aensible remarka fal len from tho lipa of mortal man than those obaervatlona of Mr. Sedgvvlck, and they are as deaCriptlve as it la pnsBlble for language to be, of the circumstances under which the removal of Mr. Stanton occurred. , Mr, Nelson went on to quote atill further from the sariie debate, and then referred tho Senate to the remarks of ChancellprKcut andof Jndso Story on the aame subject. Thus we see, eaid he, that althoueh the Federalist op posed the puwer of removal, Mr. Madison aud Judgea Kent and Story regarded it as firmly settled and eatab lished. If authoptyia worth anvthing, if thu opiniona of two ofthe ablest judges of thie country ure worth anything, I maintain that It followa inevitably that the Civil 'I'enure bill i» unconstitutional, and that the Pretident wna j uatified In exercising hia veto power againat it. Whether or nnt that view ofthe caae be correct, there ia atill another vlew ofif. If thePreaident was wrong, if he waa erroneouplv ad vised by his Cabinet, If bc caine to an improper concluaion, ifthe view taken by counselon the eUbjcct be iucOrrept. atill the argument la pertinent and appropriate aa to the question of intention I reapectfully aak whether the Senato, sitting aa judge, canuot rely with the greatest confidence on the opinion ot the two moat eminent jurists whom ourcountry haa pro duced— Kent and Story, They are names ae farailiarto ever3'- judge and, every -lawvey in the United States aa housbhold woi'da. Afid pot here alone are those names ditineuiahed. In Weat'minater Hall, in that country from which we borrowed our law, the names of Kent and Stoly are almost aa farailiar aa they are In the chaniber where your Honor preeides aa Chiel Justice of the United States, Thelrwordaare quoted by British judges, by Britieb lawyera, by text writera, and no two naraea in Engliah or American J uriaprudene? atand higher thau* the names pf thoae two diatinguiahed men. If th^y are not euffitilerit authority fo satisfy the minda of the Senate, ae they prb- bably couldnot be in view of ita action hitiierto on the subject that the Civil Tenure law is uncouatitutional, yet I aak you, Senatora, if the viewB of two such dlstinguianfid men aa theee, might not well guide the action of the Presi dent of the United Statee, and relieve hira from tbe crlml- riality imputed to hira in theae articlee of inipeachmi'nt? 1 hope you will allow mo, Senatora, to call your atten tion to eorae other opinibna on this pubject. Appoiut menta to aud reraovals frora office have been the aubject of iuveatigatiou in varioua forma by the Attorney-General of the Uuited Statea. I know that the learned manager (Mr, Butler), when he came to apeak ofthe opinion ofthe Attorney-General, said that after the office became politi cal, he did not consider it a matter of any great importance to quote theee opiuiona. No oue is more ekilled than that gentleman in the management of a caee. I will do him the juatice to eay, although Ldo not exactly agree with hiUi lu his notions about the decency and propriety of speech, that I have hardly ever aeeu a gentleman who managed a cafe with more akill arid art aud ability that he had done for the proaecution. With that aetuteueaa which distinguished him, he paeeed Over the opinione ofthe Att6rnev-General with the remark I have referred to. I had a alight suapicion that posaibly the authority Pf tho Attomey-Generalmight uiit ne just exactly the kind yof authority which gentlemen wanted, and so, although I did uot Know much ou the eubject, I concluded I would look at thoee opiuiona of the Attorney- General, and I will state to you what I have learned from the slight examination I have glventhem ; I raaintain thkt in the proper coustructibri' of the act of 1789 it is a matter of pertect indifference whether the P-eeldcnt is advised by the particular Attorney-General who may belnng to tho Cabinet iu reference to any particular act. I maintain that tho opinions delivered by tho Attorney-Genial oro in the nature of the judicial deciaiona. I do not say they are to aH intents and purposes judicial deciaions, but in the view which I entertain of the act bf 1789, 1 insist that they ehould be aa operative aud effectual :iu this high and honorable court as judicial decisions ate in the court over which your Honor presides. Why do I say aO? Unleae I have misread the Conatitutiou of the Uuited States, there ia uo proviaiou there declaring that the deci- sion of the Supreme Court of the United Stati's shall be final, and conclusive, and authoritative in questiouBof law. The framera of the Conetif ution aasumed that there was a certain state of thinga iu exiatence at the time they m8de~''it; they assumed that the hietory. of Bngli^h jurisprudefaco would be known to the American SenatorSi In other worda they assuraed fhat there waa and would continue to be a certain amount bf knowledge, and information, and reformation In the world. It waa, therefore, unneceaaary for them to put iu the ConBtitution that the decision made by the Suja-pme Court of the United Statea would bo hindiug. They knew that the practices of English judges had been for yeare to re gard a deciaion by a judicial tribunal in a caae carefully considered^ aud eepecially where it had atood for any length of tirae unreveraed, as an authority from which it was not safe iu administration of the law to'departi • Now the argument that I make ie, that while the Con stitution of the United States does not specify that tte dc- deion of judges shall have all the force of authorto in the land, any mpre thau it does m reference to the opinions 6f the Attorney-General, yet on anv fau- construction^ or aiiy fair legal intendment, I argue that under the act of 1789, the opinions of the Attomey-General may be regardedil^ the President, and byau otbBrswho have anything to sfo with that opimon as a valid aiitboritytand fibpyld be su£&i 202 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. cient to iuBtify hia action in any given caae that raight be covered by that opinions The act of Septeraber 24, 1788, provides that there shall be appointed au Attorney-General of the United States, whof e duty it shall be to prbsecute and conduct all cases in' the Suprerae Court lu which thb IJiiited Statea are concerned, and to give his advice and opinion ¦ of quea- tlons of law, when required by the hpad of any of the departments touching matters connected with their re spective departmenta. Take fhe two provielons together—the provision inthe ConBtitution that the President mav call on the?e oflicers for advice and, Iuformation,,and the prpvlaion in the act of 1789, that he may call on the Attorney-General for ad vice and opinion— then, I maintain. Senatora, that, when opiniona have beeti given iu caeea like the one under con sideration, thpse Ppiriions are in the nature of judicial opiniona, aridare a perfect ahield and protection to the Preeident, if hecan bring his act iri that particular case withiu the spirit and meaning of tbem. Mr- Nelson referred to the opiuiona of Attorney- General Wirt, Attorney-General Berry, Attorney-General Legar'o, Attorn ej'-General Nelepn, Attorney-General Crittenden, and Attorney-General Speed, on aeveraf points having more or leaa aflinity with the queation of the power of re moval and appoiutmenta. In reference to Mi*. Speed, he ¦^ eaid that gentlemen atood very high in eome quarters of thp United Statea. and his opinion waa entitled to much , weight iu thoae quartera. ' ' Senator (JONIvLlNG asked whether the oplplon of Mr. Speed was publiahed in the volumea of opinions of the At- torny- Gene ral? Mr. NELSON aaid it was not, but that he had a certified copy of it, and proceeded to read au extract from the opionion, aafollons:— - .- , "It ia his duty (meaning .the President) to do all that be has the power to do when occasion requifea the exerciae of authority. To do leaa on such an occasion would be iiro- tontot 6 abdicate hia high otfice. The Constitution isthe Bup;reme law— a law aUperior and paramount to any other. If any law be repugnant to the Conatitution it is void.'' This, eaid Mr. Nelaon, beara not onlv upon the Civil Tenure bill, but It Is square up to all the questiona which the gentlemen ou the other side have argued in connec tion with it. Here is advice giyeu to the Preaident by a man on whoae judgment he liad a right to rely ; for, be it knowu to you, the Preeident of the Uuited States is not himself a lawyer. JKe neve'r studied the legal profeaaion, and haa rio claim or preteuaioueto know anything about it. In the diacharge of hia oflicial dutiee he baa a right to con sult the legal advisera who are given to guido aud direct bim on queations of law by the Coustitiitipu of the country and by the act of 1789, and when he finde an opinion on file in h\a office, or recorded In any re ported volinne of tbe opiuiona of the Attorney-General'a, and wheu he acts upon that opinion it muat protect hira against the Imputation of unlawful or improper motivea. And now, Mr, Chief Ju;:tice, if you aee fit, in the discharge ofyonr duty, to coraply with the reepectiul request to yoa to aeliver an opinion upou any legal questiou involved In this caee, I raoat rcepectfullv aek you to consider thia opinion of Attorney-General Speed, and to eay that itia sound law. Allow me to call attention to the closing sen tence ofthat opinion, which, I think, ia the very essence of the law Itaelf. It ia aa follows :— * ' , , "But before such a caee ariaes, and in the abaence of an unauthoritative exposition of the law bv the Judicial De partment, it ia equally the duty of the oflicer holding tho executive po^vers of the government to determine for the purpoae of hia conduct and action aa well aa the operation of coufllctinglawa the uncuustitutlonality of any law." This, continued Mr. Nelaon, ie the opinion of an Attor ney-General who is uot a member of Mr. Johnson Cabi net, not a serf of the Preaidcnt's, who gave his opiuiou be fore the pre&eut incumbeut came iuto otfice. There ia his opiuion, placed on record In one of the de partmenta of the government, to stand there aud to Btaud forever, so far as the opinion,of any one Will go, to guido the higliest executive officer of the • government- It de clarea that if a law is uuconatitutional in the view of the ¦Preaident It is no law at all, and he is uot bound to follow it. It declarcB that tho Preeident has the riaht. iu the absence of any judicial exposition, to couatrue tfie law for hlineclf. I need not tell the Senate that that is no ueW do(itriuo. Why, Senators, within your day and mine, we all recol lect an executive oflicer of the United States-^aman of strong w.IU, a man not posReeaing anv great advant.tgca of education or of mental culture, but still a man of atroug intellect, and of a determination just ae strong a'a hia in tellect; we all recollect Andrew Jackaon, a name which waa oiicu potent in the United .States. No name wae evt r more powerful in this government from the time of ita foundation to the present than the name of Andrew Jack son. "There were giants in those day b." When Andrew Jack son waa at the head of the Uuited States he exerciaed his powers of removal. His rightto do so waa called iu ques tion by some of the ablest men that ever atood within tho Seuate of tho Unit'*d States; It waa diacuased, and learn edly discusecd, yet Jio persevered in hia determination of the power and authority of tbe President of the United Statee to remove froni ofiice, And to make appoint ments. A resolution waa introduced into the Senate, I be lieve, In refei'cnco to the removal of Mr. DUano, tp the effect that the Preeident of the United Staffii: iri bis late proceediuEB, had violated the Conetitution. That resolu tion passed the Seuate. A gentleman who ia now no more, but whoae name ia well known Iu the poiitical his tory of the United States (Mr. Benton), took up tho sub- jdct. I bave not referred to the hiatory of tbe debate witb sufllicieut accuracy to tell you how long it waa that he con tinued to agitate the pueetion. Mv own recoUcctiop le, that it it was for several years, and I remember, a^ the Se nators will remember, tne remarkable expression which Mr, Beutgn uaed :— "Solitary and alone,"Baid he, "I aet this ball in raotion," ' ^ ¦ ' . ^-^ -^ ^.^i. ' He detennined that that resolution censuring the action of the Presldeut'flhould be expunged fi-om the records bf the Senate. He debated it time and again with treniedotiB cncrgv and fervor until at laat the reaolution was ex punged trom the records of the Senate ot the United Statea, and that is the latest rebord we have in favor ol tho piwer removal. So far aa that actiou of the Senateof the United States goes, it is in favor of the power aud au thority for which I have argued. There are two other subjects to which I deaide to bring ybur attention ib this connection. But let us see firet how far we haVepro- greesed in the argument, I have shown you the oplnioba of Mr. Madison and Mr. Sedgwick, and othera m the de bate of 1789. I have ehown you the oplnioup of Judges Kent and Story, two of our ableat American commenta tors. - ' . •. I have shown you the opinions of Attorney-Generals eminent In their profeaaion, and Btanding high in the cob- fidenco of the country. I ha-ve showu you the action of the American Senate in the expunging resolution. I thus present to you what I may call m the language of Judge Story, an unbroken current of authority in' favor of tpe propoaition, that not only ia the Civil Tenure bill unconati- tutional, but that the Preaident 'haa the right to remove frora office, which he claims in his -answer ; and I malh- tain, Seriators, that, whether he was right or wrong, this current of authority for eighty yeara ia sufficient to tnrPw protection around himl When I show, aa I bave done, frora -the opinion of Mr, Speetl, that in the absence of any judicial determination. It ia the aworn and bounden duty of the Preaident of the United States to judge of a constitutional question £>r hiraself, I do not present to thie Senate any novel doc trine. It ia not for me to eay whether the doctrine ia right or wrong. My opinions are of no eort of conaequence in ' thia Seuate. If my areumenta are well founded and w6ll Buppbrted, they will have influence, and if not, they will be rejected. So Itienot neccasary for rae to say what I think, but I maintain that that is no novel doctrme liu .the United States. I told you yesterday that the"Preaident is a Democratflf the Btricteat sept. I told you that He was really nominated aa a Democrat in the Convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln and hiraself for President and Vice President of the United Statee. That waa not a Democratic conven tion ; it waa a convention composed of Union meu, wifb- oiit any reference to the old lines of demarcation between Whigs and Democrats; if waa a convention which' as- Bcrabled together for the purpoae of sustaining Mr. Lip- coln, and whose view and opinion was, that by sustaining Mr. Lincoln and the -meaeurea of hia admiuistrationj it would be eustaiuing the strong arm of the government iu , putting down the Rebelliou, which had npt tben been brought to a couclusion. In the reply which he made when he was Informed of his nomination, be reraarked'that he was a Democrat; and now. Senatora, I will read you the two opinions, of Mr. Jeffereon and General Jackson on the subject of ap pointments to otfice, aud before! do so, let rae call your attention to due facj. Keepthe uolitical training of the^ President of the United States dvef in your, minda'. Go to hie standpoint; look at things as he looked at thera —judge of them aa he judged of them- for you are now in aearcb of motive ; that ia whit you are trying to deter mine in thia cusP. You are in aearcb of the, question of intention, 'and when yon judge ofhis conduct, recollect that heis a Democrat of the Jeffereon aud Jackaon school, if I can show you, as I will presently ehow you, that Mr, Jefferson and Geuerfd Jackaon undertook to construe tho Conatitutiou for therii- aelves aud claimed that as Executive officers they had' a right to do so: wheu I will show you that, according to the political training and education of Mr. Johnaon, he might well helievo^nOt they had, and especially when Jie had Mr. Speed's opinion ponfirmatory bf that doctrine, it furnishes us a satisfactory vindication and protection of tho Provident as to the exerciee ofhis judgraent Mr. Nelson referred to a letter writteu Ijy Mr. Jefferson, and found in the sixth volume of Jefferaon's works, page 461, aud said that the Senate would see that Mr. Jeffereon went far beyoud Mr. Johneon in the vieWe which he en tertaiued. Mr. Johnson had said that he wae anxious to have this qiieetionbetweeu him and Congreas settled by the judicial department, but Mr. Jefl'ereon clairaed thathe hada right to decide for himaelf, irreepective both bf Con grees and of the Judiciary. Mr. Nelaon aleo referred to ' another letter of Mr. Jefferaon, to be fouud in the seventh volume of his works, .page 135, Jn, , which he saya that his conetfuction of the Constitution is that each department iH trulv Independent of the other, apd has an (Miual right to decide for iteelf what is the raeaning of the Constitution, or tbe caees.eubmitted to ite action, and eapecially where It is to act ultimately and without ap- Vea.}. m that doctrine be correct, the Prepident of the United Statea hada right to decide'thia queetionfer him- splf, ludepeftdeut of any intention or design to have a caee made and prepared for the adjudication of the judicial tribunal of the country; but it that be not correct, then. benatora. It certainly goes far to explain if not to justify, the actiou of the Preeident in the removal of Mr. Stanton. Mr. Neleon aldp referred to General Jackaon'a veto of the Uuited Statea Bank bill, wherein he declared that if IMPEAOHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 203 the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground ot that act. It ought not to control a co-ordinate authoritv of the governmeut. I want you, continued Mr. Neleon, "to notice theee asaertioua, for you will aee that such ereat men as Jefierson and Jackaon went beyond the present Preaident of the United Statea in their a^eprtione, becauae they denied the right of the Supreme Court eveu to. adjudicate tbo question. Mr. Nelson went onto quote from General Jackaoti's veto ou the Bank bill, to tho effect that thelawyei's, tho BSecutlveand the Suprerae Court must each for iteelf be guided by ita opinion of the Conatitution ; that every pub ic oflicer who takes an oath to support the Conetltution swears to support it aa he underatauda it, and not aaitla understood by othere ; that it is ab much the duty of the Houae of Representativea, of the'Sonate, and of thePresi dent, to decide upon tho conatitu tion ality of a bill or reeo- lution that may be presented to them for paiipage or au- E roval aa It is for the Supreme Judges wheu the case is rought before them for judicial decision. That the opiuion of the judges ha^ no more authority npon Congreaa than the opinion of Congreas baa upon the judgea; that upon that point the Preaident iaindependeut of both, andthat the. Supreme Court muat not, therefore, undertake to control either Congreee or the Preaident. We have hiid a good deal of talk here about prerogative. That wae the prerogative which GeneralJackaon aaaer led. that he had a right to construe the Constitution of the United States for himself, independent ofthe judicial tribunals of tbe country. ' , «.. ' , If Geueral Jackaon and Mr. Jefferaon aeeerted sUch exe cutive power, how much more might Andrew .lobneon, tho preeent Preaideut? Ho aaya, here ia a queatlon about which there ia sorae ditterence of opinion between the Cougrees of the United States and myac^lf ; here is a ques tion which haa distracted and divided the country, I de sire to have this question settled. 1 do not wiah to settle it by my own right. I deaire to subrait to thejudicial tribunals of the country, and in order fo do that, I will exerciee power which haa beeh exercised from the foundation of the government. I will re move Mr. Stantou. and I will put this case in a . condition in which it can be aettled oy the judicial tt-ibu- ¦ nals of the country. I will invoke the actiou of the high est judicial trihimal of the country, and if the Supreme Court of the United Statea decidea thia auestion in favpr of the views which Congreaa has preaented, I will acqoi-. esce in aud subrait to the decisiou. If the Suprerae Court of the Uuited States decides the question iu the other way, I will peraevere in the determinatiou to appoint some oue in the place of an oificer of my Cablnetj who is obrioxlousi to me. Now, I maintain. Senators,' that there was nothing wrong or illegal in that. But it ia argued on the other eida that after the Preaident of the United Statea has vetoed a bill, and after It haa been paased over hia veto by two- thirds of both Houeee, it ie then placed iu auch a eituation thathe has no right to put any conatruction upou it dif ferent from that whi fully imputed of auch an iuteut. Under the Constitutioii the President le to take care that the lawa ehall be ffliCh- f ully executed. The Prefcidont ia to make army rule's and reg ulation a, there being no limitation on the subject, Hfi raay la\^ fully exercise control over the acte of his aubordi- natee, as was determined bv the Suprerae Cpurt. of tEB Umted. Statea in thj case of the United States against ¦li5bia."-(l« Peters, 391; 14 curtia, 304.) *^ -^ . , lhe precedents have been declared bythe Bupremp Uourtot «io United Statee to be such ae we maintaiu- tliat no offense cau be predicated from euch acta, Wilcox va. Jackaon.. J. B. Peters, 498-where It id aaid thatthe 1 resident acts m raany ca^es through the heada of depart menta, and the Secretary of War having directed the snip dt a sectiou of land reserved for military purposes, thp court aestiraed it to be done by direction of the President, and held itto be by law hia aet; which, by the way,woula ue avery good authority in answer to the lipribrablp managers, 'that no implication reaulta in favor of the povviera claimed' by the Preident under the Constitutiou. .here is^a c&ye where the SUpreri^e Court of the United btates euiorced the doctrine bf implidation in his favor, IMPEACHMENT OP ANDEEW JOHNSON. 205 and hold that Itwould be prPauibed ' that the Secretary had acted by direction of the Preaident of the United States, and that that would be sufficient. Mr. NELSON read the ninth article, charging the Presi dent with endeavoring to induce General Emdry.to violate the provisions ofthe Tenure of Office act, &c., and also the Presidelifa answer thereto, and ^ontInued:—YoU will aee that there Ib no aiibatautlal difference, aa I understand it, between the conversatifra as eet out iu the P-^aldeut'a an awer and tho conversation as stated by General Einbry biUieelf. H6 saya that he did not requeat General Emory to disobey any law ; that he raeraly expreaaed the opinion that the law wae in confiict with the Cooatitution, and Geueral Emory auatained that to all intents and purpoaes, for when the aubject was introduded General Emory inter rupted the President and called hia attention to thia Ap- propriariou act. Now, I have to eay. In refereuce to this ninth article, that the Conetitution, article two, sectiPu two, lAith which you are all familiar, providcB that the Preeldcbt shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Array of the United Statee. The object of thia wae ae etated m 1 Kent, 283 ; 3 EUiot'e debates, 103; Story on the Constitution, aection 1491 : 92 Marahall, 583-8. The object waa to give the exerciae of power to a single hand. In tho Melga' caae, Mr. Attorney- General Black (aud I preaume, from the. eulogy pasted on Attorney-(ieneral Black by the honoraole mem ber yesterday, bis opiuiou ought to 'be a very authorative opiuion) — in Captain Meigs' case, Attornev- General Black aaya:--"AB Commander- in-Chief of the, Array it ia your right tP decide according to your own judgraent what officers shall perform any particular dutiea, and aa the supreme Executive magistrate you have the power of appointraent, .and no one can take awav from the President, or iu any wiae dlraiuiah the authority con ferred on him by the Constitntion." Mr. Nelaon quoted from Story's -Commentarie'B, Vol. 3, 14^, and from tbe commentaries of Chaucellpr Kent to the aame etfect. He proceeded :— Now; iu the case of The Umtud States against £111^, 16 . Petera, 291, It is aaid that thfe Preaident hae unqueatioued power to eatabliah rule's for the governmeut of the army, and the Secretary of .War is hia regular oreau to adraiuister the military establieh- ment of the government, and rules and orders proniul- gati-d through him muat be raade aa the acte of the Ex ecutive, and: aa auch are binding on all within the sphere of hia authority ; and now, I ask, is there auy nroof shown here. In thp fli'st place, that there was any unlawful or ira proper couveraations between the Preeident and Geueral Emory? Mr. Manager Butler, with that fertility of invention which he has so eminently displayed at every stag e of thiB proceeding, argues that It was either to bring about a civil wpi", by rcbiatlug alaw of Congreas by force, or to recog nize a Congreas compoaed of Rebels atad- Northeru sympa thizers, that thia couvereatldn was had. Let "^ Ipol^ ^t the circumstauces under which it took place. The corres pondence with. Geueral Grant occurred between the 2ath of January f-.nd the llth of February, 1868, and the PreBi dent had either »-;harged or intimated iu the couree of .that correspondence that he regarded General Graut as having manifested a spirit of insubordiuation. The suapenalon or rfcioval of Str.nton took place -on the 21at of February. Thfcenate'a reeolution of the Slat Feb ruaiy diaapproved of tlie reraoval of Stantou, aud the Pre sident's proteet occurred ou the 22d of February. I have not brought any newspapers here, Seuators, and I do not intend to bring any; beeauBC theae facta, which I am about tolstate. are so fresh iu your recollection, that without going iuto the ralnutite' or detail, it ie enough for me to fltete in general terma, that when thia unfortunate differ ence of opinion, for no matter who is right or whp is wrong about it, it is an unfortunate thing that there Ie a difference of opiuion between the Chief Executive of the nation and the Congress, or auy part of the Congress of the United Statea, it is a matter of regret that such a differ ence of opinion exists ; but wheu this correapondence oc curred, w-hen these resolutions were offered in the Senate and in the Houae within the Bhort pened of tirae that had elapaed, there was telegram upou telegram, oiler npon ofi'er. made on the one aide to Congrese i o support them, and on the other side to support the Preside...., The Grand Army of the Republic— the G. A. R.— seemed to be figuring upon a large scale, and but for the exerciee of very great prudence on the part of Congreaa, apd very great prudence ou the part of the Preaident of the United States himself, we would have had thia couutry lit up with thetianieBof civil war; but I do hope, Senatora. that no matter what opinion you may entertain on that aubject,aud no matter who you may think waa the atrongest, and God forbid that tho country should ever have any occasion to dis cover w hich baa the Breateat railitary power at command, the Congress of the United States or the Preaideut of the United Statea, I aay, without entering upon such a quea tion; which vve all ought to view with horror, to aive the Preeident of the United Statea the credit of believing that- beh'aa'BomefriendsIn this country, he has persona iuthe different States who would, ha.ve beeu willlpg to rally aroundhim. How, if au Unforfiraate railitary conteet bad taken place in tbe country, it would have resulted, God in hia wiedom only knowe. All that I have claimed for him is that, whether he bad tew or many forces at hlB command your President has not told you. Frbm; the firat day of your sesaion here yout Pt-eeldentbasmani- feated a degree of patriotic forbearance for which the wPi-Ht enemy he has on the face of the earth ought to ,give him credit. If he is a tyrant or usurper, if be has: the spiiit of a Csesar or Napoleon, if his objectif to wrestwie liberties from this country, why yourPresiderit could very easily have aounded the tocsin of war.and he could have had aome kind of a force, great or sraall, to rallv around hiin. but inatead ot doing that, hn coinea in here through his counsel betore the Senate of the United States. Although he. and hie counsel (or at leaat I, for one of thera, woidd uot undertake to apeak for the others) honeatly and sin-, cerely beheve that uuder the Conatitution of the United . Statea organizing the Senate and the Houae of Bepreaento- tivee, the Houae of Kepreaeutatives as at present consti tuted, T^'ith fifty representativee from the Southern States abaent, have no power to preaent articles of impeuchment, aud although he believes tbat the Senate, as at preeent cooatituted, with twenty Senatora abi-ent from thia Chamber who have a right to be here, have no right to try this iiripeachment, yet I ahall not argue thia queeflou, for,.inviBwofthe almoat unanimous Vote caat ' against the reaoliitiori of Senator Davia, recently, I think it would be au idle consumption of time to do it, aud I ouly advert to it bo aa to place it on the record. I eay that the President, and at least oue ofhis counael, entertain ¦'this Opinion. We thiuk it baa no right to preai;ut these chargea aud try them under the Couptitu- tion, which says that no ¦ State shall be depiived of equal representation jn the Senate, yet the Pre eident, instead of resorting to war or arbitrary tyranny, which waa reaorted to by the ambifibuB men that have beeu described in this Chamber, he eubraits this question in a peaceful and quiet manner, to he adjudged and determined by the Senate of the United Statea ot its E resent organization ; and now will vou not at least give ira credit for eome degree of forbearance? When gentle men talk of hia trying to turu usurper, and hie having a pur pose iu sending for General Emory,.do they prove auy iraproper deaigu on hia part? None on the face of the ^.irth. Was it uot natliral in thia atate of things, wheu thp whole country waa agitated and excited, when men's miuda were aroused everywhere iu the unfortunate con dition of partiea in tho United States to auch an extent as that they were offering troopa, on the onehand. to aus tain Congreas, and on the other to auatalu , the President, * and wheu the Lieutenant-General of the Army and the President had differed iu their opiniona. Imalntalu tliat^hevery fact thathe has done nothing of a military character, ahowa that he had no intention to do the acts which are iraputed to hira. But it waa right. It was natural wheu he aaw theee deapatehea; when he knew that there waa a dilficulty between (jeneral Grant _._ , sending deapatches stating how they were to atand up for tho Congreee of the United States. In that controversy, it wae natural aud right, aud within the legitiraate scope of the powers conferred upon him by theCcDatitution.thathe should eeud for thie othcer, that he ahould auquiro what was the raeaning of theee new troops that were brought iuto the Departraent of Waehington. He had a right to do it, and tbe fact that he did it is uo evidence of an unlaw ful deaigu on hia part, but it provea that he waa endeavor- , ing to understaud, aa It was hie dutv to understand as the Ulommauder-In-Chief of the Array aud Navy ofthe United Statea, what waa the meaning of the introductiou of theae forcea. What did he know but what Geueral Graut in the progj-eB8.of thia qiiarrel raight aaaume the power of a mili tary dictator? How did he know but what Geueral Grant nught be endeavoring to aurround bim with troopa to have him arrPated? Had not he a right to send for. an officer and inquire if he knew of the ' introduction of theae railitary forces here, aud when he fouud that it was only a trivial force ; when he found that there waa no expreaaed design on the part of anvbody te violate the Conetitution of the United States, didn't he stop? No effort was made ou his part to raanage the army or to persuade the army to go to war with the Congreas of the Uuited States, but he retained hia fcouneel, and, lu a peaceful mauner, sUbmita himseU to the judg ment of the Seuate; aud I atand here Iu the face of this Senate and say that the history of the whole world doee uot furniah anything iu meal sub limity aud grandeur aurpaBeiug,the triuraphant spectacle , which we UQW behold., I was delighted and rejoiced to Bee that this unfortunate controversy waa taking this turn. ,1 regretted that any auch controversy had origi-, nated— that ariy such difference of opinion had occurred between Congress and the President; but iu view of thoae rPd-hot deepatchee which were pouring In on both sides, ¦ frora every quarter of the United States, I felicitated ray ¦ country andyou upou the thoueht that the President of ', , the United States had come here through hie counael and.) was willing to abide the arbitrament of the American Se nate, and as one man at least let them judge of their owa • constitutional power- judge as does every other court of justice doea In determiniug the queation of juriadiction--..) to let you judge for yourselves whether you had the coiiT.h stitutional power to try it. . ' ¦ f He comes in thia peaceful and quiet mode, and I maiu-(^>f tairi that he is not i uetlv chargeable with thOjimputations -q that are made agaiuat him and hia conduct jin} the; argu-^^; mente that are made by gentleraen on the other-aide. They -, may impute motives as much aa they please by the conver* . sation with General Eraory or anybody else. The Presi dent has brought no force here ; he has not. attempted) in any manner whatever, to overawe Congress or to plunge tlua country Into a revolution. He has . act§d peaceably and quietly, and the charges that are made-against him are wholly witiiout foundation. In fact, all the testimony shows that the Preaident of the United Statee had if in view to have this question settled in a peaceful and amici^' 206 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. ble.modp, intending that it should go befbre the Supreme Court, tT Mr. Nolson quoted the tenth article in regard to the Pre eident'a speechea at the Executive Mansion, at Cleveland, and at St. Louis, and cohtinii'ed:— A great deal of teati mony haa been taken about thie I might ra.i.ke an argu ment aa to whether they are faithful repreaentatloua of what the Preeident paid or not, but I shall not worry your patience, after having delayed yoii eo long with my argu ment, on that point. Mr. Nelaori then quoted irom the answer. 'He pi-oceeded :— We say. therefore, fhat thi.^ I.^ a personal right in the President andin the citizeu. I say, further, that the&e epepchcB were not official like his com munications to Congres^. but mere private and peraonal, andin answer to the call of hia f elio w-citizcna. Why, ten yeara ago, it would have struck the American pecftile with aatonishraent that such a charge should bo preferred against the Preaident of the Uuited States. Why, almost from my boyhood, down to the coramence ment of the war, I had talked time and again about what was known aa the old seldition lawe, aud if there waa any thing that stunk in the nosti-ils of tho American peoplp, it waa that. The obiect of that waa to prevent -the publica- tiqnof raatter that might affect the President or the Go vernment^ of the United States, We, iu (thia country, like toexcrcise thefreedoiu of apeech which our fathera gua- raiifced to us In the Conatitution. arid like tho liberty of thfe pre^, which ia also another cheriBhed right of every American citizen, > We look to have the largest liberty in theexerciee of that right. The Araerican people have been accuetoraed to it ever siuce they were a nation, arid it ia a fireat deal netter ., to toler.ate .even impropriety andindecency ^of eppech, and to tolerate the liceritipus- ness of tJie' pre^s, than It ia to, impose such restrictions aa are imposed in. other countriea upon these things. Public opinion, aa a geueral rule, will regulate the indecency of apeech, as it will regulate and control the llcentibuaneiis of the press. If public opinion doea not do it, why, ae a geueral rule iu a great ^auy cases, fhe firbi of the law is loug eriough and strong enough to apply, any corrective that may be neccasary, out the American people will suffer no reatriction of the freedom of speech. Let it be known and remembered always that powerful aaiCongreBB may be, igreat aa the powera of the Preeident of 'the United Statea are. in a technical eeuee, it has alvvava been admitted byall politiciana and public mm iu the Uriited States that there is a pn wer iri which is the sover eign and master of both: that is the people. ITiey are the constituency of Congress aud the Preeident. Merabera of Cougrpas have the right to speak, and to speak with perfect freedom of the conduct of the Presi- dent^ and the Preaident, in turri, has a right to carry the war -mto Africa, and speak about Congress when he is as sailed. And, if he does thie, he has just the same right to do it aa any othercitizen iu <.ur aovernment. And, when you deetroy the right ofthe President of the Unitud States 'to defend himaelf againat charges made againet hira, either in Congreaa or out of Congreas, why theu you pu,t the President at the feet of Congresa, and you de&troy tnat in dependence which wae intended by the Conetitution to be secured to each of the co-ordinate departmenta, of the go vernment iu their appropriate apherea. It was iritendcd that the legislative departmorit should be iudepeudent iu ita ephere and within the circle of Its afipropriate duty ; and thatthe judicial' departilient in a like manner ahould be independent iu the function apnro- priatelybeloutiing to it, and that the Preeident ahould be equally independent both of the judiciary and of Con gress, and to hold otherwise, if you had Congreaa to be able to monopolize all the powera of the Coutttitution, it btfcoraee ultiraately a deapotlera, auch as waa never con templated by the fathers nor Senatora. 'I do not intend to go further into this diecuaslon, and I shall doee my remarka very aoon. 1 do uot Intend to go miriutelylnto the discussion of this question, but Ihave to-aay in regard to the President of the United Statea, juet aa I have said In regard to the Houae of Keureaen tatives,' he ie amortsilraau— heieroade of flesh and blood. The Preaident has a temper aud paaaion^, j ust as any other mnu, and when he ie attacked m Congreas, or anywhere elae, why may he not defend himself? W e an know when the venerable leader of the Houae of Representatives, who had oppoeed the Preaidcnt's uoriii- n^.tiPU at Baltimore, and whb. If I am not rauch iniatakEn, juat a few days before the Preaident made one of^iia apeeches which he haa raade In the cauae of thie contro versv, apoke in the House of Kepreecutativea aboutChiirles I., The Preeident made a apeech in the Executive MauHinn outheSSdof Februaiy, in which he notictd that speech, treating it aa a eort of Irritation to asaaasinatlori. That irritation, eo far ae I know, waa never noticed by the mauagers of the Houae of Representati veia ; he had a Serfect right to pay anything he plea ied about the Presi- ent of tne United States, but ia hen theae thinga were done by membera of Congreaa, and circulated all over the land, publiahed broadcast in the newspapers, what la there inthe altuatlon ofthe Preaident bf the 'Uuited States that prevents him frdm 'e:£erciBirig thp ordinary right of self- defense that belongs to every citizen of the land. I admit that the President of tho United S ates in a communica- tian to you oflicially aa merabere of Congresa, ought to pre serve a proper defcorum ; that amenity of expreaaion— if I rni&y use auch a term— which shoiild be eriiployed iu the » mtercourae between one department and the other.' JJ But I mention that wheu Andrew Johnson took his tour trcm WaRhingtou City to Chicago, and St. Louif, and Cleveland, and Cincinnati, and returned to the City of Washington, be was nothing but a private citizen', to be Burehe is President -of the United StateB, bnt nothingin the Conetitution,, nothingin the laws authorizes anyone to regulate his movements. He goes' asaprivate citiaen, and if he is called to make a apeech and he chooaea to re- Bpond to it, aud eome aevere phillippics have beeu hurled against him by members of Congress, and becho6.-.ea to anawer them, and membera pf CongreBs have inaiatedin thestrougeBtteruia on their right .to hold this, that or the other doctrine, caunot the President anawer the chargea bk thesame way '...„. ' s * ¦ ^ v i Appealing, as he does, to the people to judge between them, who would deny tofy;iy Seuator or Kepreaentatlve cither, in what is ordinarily called a Btump speech, orin any other mode of coramunication, to aaeail the conduct of thePresident of thu United States? Why. Senatora, itia the very life and salvation of our republic, although party spirit seeraa to have culminated to an extraordinary de- gr.e within the last four or five years. It is the pre?erva- tiori of the liberties of the American citizen. When par- ,tie8 are equally balanced they w atch each other, and they are eedulously cautious in regard to anything that might violate the Conatitutiou ofthe UuitiJd States. I believe it has been proved in regard to every one of thoae occaaiona that it was sought,' not. by the Preaident, but by othera ; aa when Senator Johnson and others called upou'the Preeident at the Executive Mansion, they called upou him in .their character aa citizena, arid he replied to them ae he had a right to reply to them- When he went to Cleveland it is ahown that he did not desire to do any- tliiug raore than to make a aalutatiun to the neople, but ne waa urged by hia frieuds to do more, and I think it very likelv, from the circumstancea which a. ere detailed here inevidence,thatiri all probability there was a mob there iu Cleveland, ready, cut and dried to lU8ult,)indabuae,the I'resident in the manner they did. so as to preveut him, if P0B.iibie, from £p?akiiig, and when there, gave hhn provor cution. He replied juat ae any other mau should da, aud had a right to do; and if be used strong expreeaione iri re gard to Congreas, they were not stronger than he hada rightto use. I tell you, Senatora, he haB a right to speak of anv act of Congress, in any raode that' he seea proper— there id no law and nothing in the Constitution to prevent it. One Of the greatest righta sicured'to thcpiople uudbr the Consti tutiou would be invaded if this privilege waa denied. Mr, Nelson then quoted from the eleventh Article' and, from the Preeident'a auswer, and continued;— Time and tirae agaiu the l-'resldent iu hia veto mesaagee has asserted these viewa and opininus as to the righte of the Southera States, now exclu apd from representation; and although the phraaeology is a little more courtly and elegant In the ml'Baages than in the speeches, yet substantially the Pre- sldentlias iu almoat every oue of theae comrauuicalionain- F,i.itedthat theae States are eutitled to repreeen tation in Congress. The gentleraan who laat addressed you (Mr. Boutwell) Bsild'that the PEeeident Mlahed to obtain control of the army and navy, and to control the electione of 1868-69, al- lowirig Itebfla to exerciee the elective frauchiae, ana e»= eluding negroes from voting.. What authority did tbe ho- norablpinanagergetln'thiacase to raake that aasertion? He save that the South' haa been giveri up to bloodahed, I live iu the South, audhave not the slishteat doubt that al though there has beeu a bad atate of||kiug.jin som» por tions of the Soiif^h, nlue-teuthe of tm raurders and aa- st-asinatlona were .seneatiou stories, madelwith a view, to excite men. As to thp Preeideut assuming powers not warranted bv the Constitution, I have endcavbred in a feeble way to ahow you that he is not guilty. ' I say to you, Senators, that you have a eoleran reaponBi- bility. I liaVe the aarae faith now that I have had ever Eince I undertook' this case; the same confideuce which oughtto be reposed in the Araerican Senate. 1 do believe that raen of your character, of your position in the world, have the ability to decide thia cauee impartially, and to aet aside all party consideration in ita determination. Every lawver knows of 'caaea where men, especially upon circumstantial evidence, have been tried and executed, when it aftei'warda appeared upou more careful iuvefltig&- tion that they wero uot guilty. I think that even tlie Senate of the United Statee may look at the historv of the wprld for the purpoae of derivlug the leaaon intended to be Impreeaed upou courts and juriea by the booka. So, without going over thi se things again, I can gay that I triirik even the Senate of tho Uuited States raav look back to the' history of the world for the purpoae of deriving sorae inetrufctive leaaoua. Without undertaking to travel along the whole course of history, aoiue three br four ex amples ha-vie occurred in the history of the world that are not unworthy of a pasi-iug notice. The account which has been trunamitted to us of /the murder of Ciosar by Brutua, haa raiaed the question^ for nearly twenty centu ries whether that act was ari act of pairiotisui. and whether it waa justifled or riot. The execution of Charlea I IS another of the historical problems which has never been, and never willbe aettled. In the opinion of man kmd, some regard Cromwell ob a patriot, animated by the purest motivea, others as au ambltiouB man craviug for povver and property. That quearlou still remains open, bnt fhe deeds of vio lence committed In the worid have not always been fol lowed by peace and quiet to thoae who have' done thera. A few short years after the execution of Charles I, aud the bodies of Cromwell and Bradahaw, and one or two otheis who were concerned in, hie' execution, were, iu conae quence of a change in public opinion, taken frum their E-ayea. and hung by the party that came into power. ouia XVI was executed, by the people of Frauco. Did tbat^act giVp peace and quiet to the French Kingdom? IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 201 No! It waa aoon followed by deedaof bloodahedsucb aa the world hae never Pccn. The guillotine waa put in. motion, and the streeta of Paris ran wich human gore. Thoae deeds that are doue iu tiinea of high party aud po litical excitement are deeda that should admonish you as tethe nianner In^^'hIch you diecharge the duty that de volves upon you. I have no idea that conaequencea euch aa I have deacribed will result, butyet deeds that are done iu excitement ol'ten come back iu after yoars and cauae a degree of feeling. I will not attempt to describe ; that has been done a pi-eat deal better than I can do by a master baud, who tella ub "Porever and auou of griefa aubdued. Thero coinea a token like a scorpion's sting, scarce seen but With freah bitterneaa iuibucd, and alight withal may be the thoughta which bring back to the heart, the weight of which it would fling away forever." "It may be a sound, a liue of mueic, summer eve pr spribg, the wind of the ocean which shall sound striking " the electric chain whorewith we are darkly bound, and how or u hy we know not, nor can trace home to ite cloud this lightning of the mind, nor can efface the blight and blackeniug it leaves behind." God grant that the America,n Senate may never have such teelinga aa theee. God grant tliat you raay ao act in Uie discharge of your dUtj' that there ehall be no painful reniembrauce, Seniv-. tors, to couie back upon you in a dying hour. God grant thatyou mav so act that you will not only be able to look death and eternity iu the face, but feel that you have dls- dharged your duty aud your whole duty tg God and your Qouutrv. Ifeo, yoU will receive the approbation of men arid angela and the admiration of posterity. I do not know, Mr. Chief Justice and Senators ,that It la exactly in accordance with the etiquette of the court of justice for me to da" hat I propose to do uow, but I trust the Senato will take tho will for the deed, and if thero is duything Improper in it you will overlook it. 1 cannot close the reraarka I have made in this case without stating my profound thauka to the (Jhlef Juatice and the Senatora for the very kiud and patient attention with which ynu have liateucd to rae on thia occasion, imperfect and lengthy (fa haa been the argnmeut 1 have offered. You have sub mitted with a patient attention which f had little reason to expect, and I cannot take ray seat without extending to Sou my thaulcB, whether it be in accordance with the gage or not. Ml'. NELSON having concluded hia argument at fifteen minutes past four o'clock, the court adjourned until twelve o'clock to-morrow. PROCEEDINGS OF SATURDAY, APRIL 25. Adini«Mion of OOlcial Reportert*. After tbe openinp: of tbe court, the Chief Jnstice stated that the firat business in order was the order of fered by Senator Edmunds yesterday to admit the offi cial reporters to report the proceedings in secret ses sion on the final question, Mr. EDMUNDS, at the sugg-estion, he said, of seve ral Senators, moved to postpone the consideration until Monday. Senator BRAKE— I move that that order be in definitely postponed, and on that I call the yeas and nays. .Senator EDMUNDS— Mr. President, So do I. The motion of Mr. Drake was voted down by tbe fpllowins' vote : — Yeas.— Mesara. Caraeron, Chandler, Conkling, Corbett, Drake, Ferry, Harlan. Howard, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Ns'e, Pumeroy. Ramaey, Boss, Stewart,' Sumner, Thaypr, Tipton aud Yatea— 20. N A vs.— Alesert!. Anthony, Buckalew, Craelu, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle. Kdmunds. Peeeenden, ¦ Powler, Freliughuyaen, Grimes, Hendereun, Hendricka, Hpwe, Johneon, McCreery, Morgan, Norton, Patteraon (Tenn.), Saulaburv. Sherraan. TrurabuU. Vau Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Willlaras and Wilson— 27. Tbe motion to postpone till Mondsay was agreed to, Mr. Sumner^a Order. Mr. SUMNER" offered the following order:— '.Ordered, Th^t the Senate, sitting for the trial of Andrew Johnson, Preeideut ot the United States,' ^ill proceed to vote on the several articles of Impeachment at twelve o'clock on the day. after the close ofthe argument. Senator *?tieo and Sena tora:-! am Eorry.that I aiji not ao well to-day ae I ahould like to be, but 1 know the deaire of the Senato fo get ori. with thia ai'gument. and haVe, therefore, preferred to come here thie ra.orning and attempt to preaent an outline, atleaetj of the viewe I have formed of fhe reepondent's caae. Since the organization of our government we have had five triala on Impeachment, pne of a Senator and four of judges, who haVe held their office by appi>iiitment, and for a tenure during life and good behaNior. It has not been the practice, nor is it the wi-^e policy of a republic to avail itself of the remedy of impeachment for the regula tion of ita elpctivo officera, Impe^ichmeut was not in vented for that purpoae, but rather to lay hold of offices that were held by inheritance andlFor life, and the true policy of a republican governraent, according to my ap- prehenaion, ia to leave theee mattera to the people, who are the great and suprerae tribunal to try just auch ques tiona, arid thev aaaemble etatedly for that purpoae with' the single object of deciding whether an oflicer ehnll be continued or whether he ehall be reraoved from office. I may be allowed, Senatora, to expresa my regret tuataucb a case aa thia la before you, but it ia here, aud it muat be, tried, and therefore I proceed as I promiaed at the outr start, to Bay what I may bo able to eay on behalf of the re apondent. In, the argument of one of the managera the question waapropounded. "Ie thia' body now eitting to determine the accusation of thoHouse of Reprceentatives againat the President o'f the United 6"tatee, the Senateof tho United Statee or a court?" The argument goeeou to admit if thia body ie a court in auy manner as contra-diatinguidhed from the Seuate, theu we agree that the accuaed raay, claim the benefitof the rulea of criminal caaes, although he can only be convicted wheu the evidence makee the case clear beyond a reasoriahle doubt, and iu view of thia state ment, and in view nf the labored eft'ort which haa been made hy the managere in thie cause, I apk. Senators, your' attention to the queation. In whatcharacteryoii proceed tp thia trial? We have heard protracted and elaborate dle- ' cueeion to ahow that you do not sitae a court. The mana gers have even taken offense at any auch recognitinu of your character. FPr sorae reaaon thtit I will unt allude to, thev have dPne everi more^ and claimed for this bodv the most extraordinary jurisdiction. Admitting that it waisa conatitu til inal tribunal they have yet claimed that it knew no law, either atatute or comnion ; that it consulted no. precedents aave thoae of parliaraentarv bodiea ; that it was' alaw In Iteelf; in a word, that ita jurisdiction was vi ithout bounda, and could irapeach from any cause aud there was no appeal from ite judgment. - The Constitution would appear to give it somewhat ite jurisdiction, but everything it may deera irapeachable be coinea auch at once, and wheu tne phraae "high criraes and mladeraeanors" are used in that instrument they are without sigmficance, and intended raerely to give ao- lemnlty to the tribunal to sustain this extraordinary view' of the character of this tribunal. We have been referred' to English precedents, and eepeciallv to early Engliah pre- cedeute, when, according^o ray recnllection, irapeachrnent' and attainder, and bills of pains and penalties have labored together in the work of murder and coutipcation. Senatorp, I do not propose to linger about these Enelieb caaea. We have cases ofour own upou this eubject. We have tPachinge of our own. We know our fathere, iu Iraming' the Conetitution, were jealoue of delegating powers, anu tried to make a limited conatitutional goverument; tried to enumerate all the powere the.y were willing to intrust to auy department of it. The Executive Department is limited ; the Judicial Department ia limited, and the Legia lative Department we have auppot=cd was also limited; but according to the argument raade here in this trial, it is otherwise, and it has In ite service and atjts comraand an institution that is above all law and acknowledges no re- Btraiut— an Institution worae than a court-martial, in that it haa a broader and raore dangeroua jurisdiction. Senatora, I canunt believe fur one moraent that there is lying in the heart of the Conatitution any euch tribunal as thia, andl invite your attention to a brief examination of our own authoritiea and of our own teachings on thie aub ject. It waa with much doubt and hesitation that the juriadiction to try impeachment at all was intrueted to the Senato of the Unitcfl Statea. The grant of juriediction tb the Senate waa deferred to the laet raoment of time; nor waa your juriediction overlooked. Allow rae to call vour attention to-jthe proceedinga in the Journal of the Federal Convention 'Upon thie subject. In the first report that was preBented tbey proposed to allow impeachment for mal- 208 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. practice or neglect of duty. It, will be ofesenved that this IB very English-like and very broad. There ia not neceapa- rily any crime in the luriadictlou herb propoeed to be cou ferred. In the next report they proposed to allow the tri- bnrial jurisdiction over treaaon, briberv and corruption. It will beobserved that thev began to get aWay frora English i^ecedent and to approach thfefiual result at which they arrived, lhe juriadiction. is partly criipinal and partly broad and open, not neceasarily involving criminality. In the next report on thievery queetiou pfjurlsdicliou they reported to the Senate, or rather to the Supreme Court of the Uuited States, to which body -up to the very last mo ment they confided the jurisdiction. In the uext report thev proposed to alloW jurisdiction for treaaon or bribery aud notning elae. It will be observed that hei*B wae riotlfing but a groaa flagrant crirae, and that givea the jurisdiction that we have iu the present Con- atijtutipn— treason, bi"ibery|aud other high crimes and miedeineauore^ not malpractHses, not neglect of du ty, noth ing that left jurisdiction Cpen ; the juriadiction la short and limited by any fair couatructiou of thia lauguage, aud it waa intended to be short. It is imposaible to obaerve the progresa of the deliberatlona of that Cou^eution upon this single question, beginning witb tlie briefest and most open juri-^diction, and ending in a jurisdiction con fined in ita terrae, without coming to the conclusiou that it was thear determination that the jurisdiction should be cu*cumecribed and liraited. In what character Senators ^6 you sit here ? You have heard the argument ofthe managere, you have heard the dlacueeion of the aubject all through the progreas of the 6aae; yon have been referred tb Engliah precedenta by the mauagers to support their theory that you ait here, not as a court, but aB an inquest of office, or aa a nameless tribunal with unfixed andilllirii- table jurisdiction. We have our own precedento ou this subject, aud I ^^-ill call your attention to thera. It hae been heard In tlilB trial for the firat tirae, that this tribunal now Bitting aa you are eitting, is anything elae tban a court, I challenge the gentleraen, after their in- veatigationa of the actiou of the Couatitutional Conven tion, to show anything that haa been aaid or done, calcu lated to make the impreeslon that tue tribunal to try im peachment ia anything else than a court. Let ua look,,Se- nators; at our ^own history. We havehad four trials of iriapeachment m the Uuited States. Thefirdt was.tliecase of Blount. What was the lauguage ofthe tribunal Iu that trial? When It came to make a final decision, it did eo iu thialanguage:- "The court is of opiuion that the matter alleged la not eufficient in law to ahow that this conrt oughttohold juriediction of the aaid impeachment." ITiat is cood, auth ority— that is good American precedent ou this «ueBtion. It is the deliberate opinion of the Senate of the ¦nlted States iuthe first trial iu which it aat in that ca pacity, declaring Iteelf in the moat aoieran language, which ft uttered duriug the trial aa ite final decision, that it Waa a; court and not an Inqueat of office, or some nameleas thing, calculated only to frighten the tiinid. ,,Whiat ia the next caae? The Pickering caae. Through out its progreas the Senate styled iteelf "The Senate eitting in the capacity of a Court of Impeachment," and the laat action of the body, its dociaipn, was on a queation In this. form:— "Isthe court of opinion that John Pickering be removed." So too iu the next case, the caee of Chase.' The President In that caee styled the body "a court," and waa more fortunate than the Chief ,Iuatice, In that he escaped all cenpure frora the mauagers ofthe House of Represeuta tivea. How in the uext caae, the Peck case, the tribunal iteelf put the final point in thia language— "yVesoiued, That thia court *i ill now pronounce judgraent in the case of Williara H. Peck, Juatice of the United Statea for the Dia trict of Miasouri." Now, Senators, I have gone over every precedent thaf we have iu our own hiatory on ttiis ques tion, and they show that in eveiy iu-stance the Senate solemnly declared itaelf to be a court. If we are to go by precedent, let us take our own precedei te rather than thoae which have been eo liberally quoted from abroad, by tbe managera on thia oceaaion. In what spirit, Senatora, shall you try this caae? Allow me to refer yon on that subjdct, to the language of Story in his Commentaries on tbe Conatitutiou. Be says, "The great objects to be at tained in the selection of a tribunal for the trial of im- peachniente, are impartiality, integrity, intelligence and independence. If either of these be wanting, the trial muBt be radically Imperiect. ToBecure inte'grity there , must be a deep sense of duty and a deep responsiullity to future times and to God; to secure iutelligence there must be a "high intelligence— powers aB well aa attaluments—neceaeary to secure inde pendence ; there muat be numbers aa well as talents, and a confidence reaultlug at once from permanency of place, dignity of station and enli_ghtened patriotism," On the next page Story adds :~"Strictly Bpeaking, the power, that ' ia, the power of impeachment, is partly of a political cha racter, and on thia account it requires to bo guarded in its exercise against" the epirit of faction, the intolerance of garty and the sudden movementa iu peculiar feeling." enatora, thia ia not my language, it is the language oi a distinguialied jurist whom you all roepect, but I may af firm by all our own authorities and/ n^ laU our teachings on thesubject, that it Ib a true aud faithful portraiture of what is meant in the Constitution ;by,th6 .ttibunal to try impeachraeut. i , , ,Fpr that purpoee you have been sworn anew as it were ¦ to prepare you tor thia occasion.. The oath which you took, when you entered thia Seuate Chamber, as Senators, was a pwiitical, a legislative oath. The oath whichis noW unon you IS purely a judicial oath to do impartial juatice. We are then, taeuatore, iu a court. What are you to try? XQUare to t^y the charges contained in thpse articles of impeachment, and nothing else. On what are you to try them? Not ou comraon famei not on presumption of guilt,' noton anyviewsof party politics. You are to try theffl' on the evide'noe offered here, and on nothing else. By the obligation of your oaths, What is tlip issue before youf ' Senators, allow me to say thatit ifl nota queation whe*- ther thie or that thing waa done. You are not here to try a mere iaaue of fact. By the very terms of the Constitu tion you can only try in thia tribunal, crime. Let me re-^ peat the juriadiction:— "Treason, bribery, or other hi^ crimee or miederaeanorH." ¦ The juriadiction is comprised within that language. JTHal only issue which this court can try, is the ii»3uc oi criiiie; What is crirae? In every crirae there muat be unlawful purpoae. or intention, and when thia ia wantiug there c^rf be no crirae. There rauat be an unlawful purpose prSmp:^ ing its commiasion, otherwiae there can be no crime. £e{; . me Illustrate:- Suppoae a crazy man ehPuld burst ;inW', thie Chamber and kill one of us ; he has cora raitted' the acS, of homicide, but be has not committed a crime. SUMM^- the President should becorae deranged, and ahouldi WniM in that condition, atterapt to bribe and to break law'upbir law, you have uo juriadiction to try him ou irapeachmenfe- Let me put another case that ii not suppoeitioue. Mr. Idttf, coin claimed and exerciaed the power to organize a mijll', tary comraieeion under which he arrested and imprisoMw , citizens within tho loyal States. He had uo act of COTS' greee warranting itj and the Suprerae Court ofthe Unit|DC Statea haa d.-clared th.-it the aet was agaiust the_ expreaa' provi;iooa of the Conatitution, Suppoae he did violate the expreaa provisions of the Constitution, then^ accord'ng,to the argument of the managers, he might be impeached and convicted. I beg to read from the argument of one of the managers on thatBubject. The honorable inanager who addresaetf us the day before yeeterdav referred to the motivea of tne President, and decbired luat the neceaaary inl'erence of the law ie, that he acted under the infiuence of bad fflo- tives; whereby the gentleman seems to acknowledge thaf,, in order to constitute a crirae there rauat be a motive. 'j here cau be no crirae without a motive; but now, when the Preaident comes forward, and offers to prove hie good motive, you will not allow hira to make that proof. "When ha cnmea forward and'off'erB to prove thia from hiB warm and living heart, the answer is, "we make up the motive out of the presumptions of the law, aud conclude you ^dii ' that point; we will nothear yoa; you must be silent," V.'J Now, Senatora, the juriediction of this body ia to UM- crime, and there la uo crime without unlawful intenil]^^ aud purpoh:e. You cannotget a crime without showibS^ the unlawful intent or purpoae behind the act itaelf. .WftM' ie your verdict? Not that the Preaident did this or thoK act. That ie notit.- But was be 'guilty of high miale^ meanor, it being hia purpoee to comrait it? > " With theae preliminary observations, I propoae to pro ceed to a brief exam iuation of the caae preeeuted. You arenow, all of you,.familiar lyith. the argumento which have been preaented thus far in this case, aud I need not attempt to go over theni, I have this to say, and you will all concur with me, that the firat eight articles are built upou two acts ofthe Preeident; the one being tbe removal of Edwiri M. Stanton, the other the Iptter of authority givPn to Lorenzo Thoraaa. Now, if you \^ili take those eight aitlclea, and notice the substantial argument arouud which they are bound, with all their aesercious of good or bad iuteut, aud all their ftrgumerits of every kiud, you wfil fiud that there are but thoae two aets— the reraoval of Mr Stantou and the letter of authority to Geueral Thomas, To do that, we have only to inquire in reference to these , two acts in order to ascertain the merltfc of this caae. U the Pre.=iident of the United States had the right to remove . Edwin M. Stanton, then these eight articles are without support. If, in addition to that, he had the right to give-' the letter of authority to Lorenzo Thomas, then these arti cles fall to ruiri. Now, there is no Senator who hae studied this caee who will not eee the application of thia dtateuient at once, and it relievea us frora tiie ueceesity of going over article by ai> tlcle, step by step, in our progrtrse. Give me thoae twb propoaition -the right to remove atantouaud the right tS- i.-Bue the lettei' of aufbority to Thomaa— aud the articles \ fall instantly, and there la nothing left of them, so thatwe' have, in asking your consideration of these articles, but two inquiries to make. Had the H-esideut tho right to ra-- : move Mr. Stanton, and had he the right to iaaue the letter'^ of authority to Ihomas? Ipropuso now, as well as I am* able, to examine this question. Had the Preaident the rightto remove Edwiu M. Stanton? I propose to examine*" that questiou first, iu connection with the act regulating' the lenure of Civil Officea. It is claimed on the one side^ that, by the opei ation of thie lavv, Mr. Stanton waa witflt \ drawn from hiB previoua poaition, and ie covered and pro- ¦ tected here. It ia claimed upou the other eide that the law doea not apply to his caae at all. 1 think it nill he readily- acknowledged by Seuatore that tbe PreBident has^theriftht to reraove hira. " . ° . Allow me to "call your attention to one question of this law lu which tbe question seeniBito be involved. It pro* Vides, That everv person holding any civil oifice t6 which he has been appointed .by and m Ith the advice and con aent of the Seuate, aud every peraon who shall hereafter ' be appointed to any auch office aud hecome dafcr qnalifiBd to act therein, ia entitled tohold such ollice imtil his sue cesser Bhall haVe been appoiuted and dulyqi^litied, ex- cept as herein otherwiae.provided. /*ro^l^de(^,'J'hat thei Se cretary of State, the Secretary of the Treaaury, the Secret. -. tary of War, the Secretary of thcNavy, andthe Secretary of the Interior, the Postmaater-General, and the Attorfli^- ' General shall hold their offices respectively fur aud during^ IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 209- the term of the President by whom they were appointed, and for one month thereafter, aubject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Now, geutlomen, let me atate a few facts before we pro ceed to the consideration of this act. The firat fact la, that the act wae pasaed on the 2d of March, 1867. I further call J 'our attention tn the fact that Mr. Stanton'a coinralsalou B dated on the 16th of January, 1862. It ia a commieEinu given to hira by President Lincolu. by which he is to hold the office of Secretarv for the Department of/Var, duriug the pleasure of the Preeident for the time being. Mr. Johuson becarae Presidout on the 15th day.of April, 18fi5, andhe has not, in any raauper, cominit'eioued Mr. Sgn- ton. Now. upon theae facts Senators, I claim thataia clear that Mr. Stanton Ia not protected by this Civil Tejare act. Let UB inquire. The law proposes to graut tpAhp Cahinot officere, aa they are cjilled, a term that ehnll bist duriug the term of the President by whom they are ap pointed, aud one raonth thereafter. Mr, Johneon haa not awoiuted Mr. "Stanton. He was appoiuted during the first term of Mr. Lincoln. He wae uot appointed at all during. the term of Preaident Johneon. He holds hia office by a commleeion, if at all, tluit would eend hira through ad ministration after administration iudefinitelv, or until he is removed. Now, what is the meaning of thia language— "He shall hold his ofiice- during the term of tne Preeident by whom he is appointed?" He was not appointed during the pre sent terra. I think that ia plain, it doea ecein to me that that simple atatement euttlep thl<> question. The gentleman bas said thieia M-. Lincoln's term. Tho dead haa owner ship in no office or estate of any kind. Mr. Johnson la the Fieaidcut of the United Statea with u term, and this id hia term. But if Mr. Lincoln were llvins to-day; if Mr, Lin coln Wei-G President to-day, he could remove Mr, St.-iuton. Mr. Lincoln would uot havo appointed him duriug thia I terra. It was during the laat term that Mr.Stantou was appointed and not this. And an appointment by the Pre siaent duriug one term, by the operation of this law, will not extend the term of one Preaident through that of an other becauee that aarae person happened to be re-elected to th^ Preddency. Mr. Stauton hulda the oflice, therefore, under the coramission given him, and not under the law. But, Senators, hia tenure of office cannot be changed or ex tended froui hia coramission to the law, What ia the pro position of thia law? Mr. Stanton held his office during the pleasure of the Preeideut. for the tirae being." This law propoaes to give him a term of four years, and one month thereafter. By what authoritv can the Congrese of the Uuited States, ex tend tho term In thie raaunei'? An office can only he held by the appointraent of the Preeident. His noraination and bis appointraent lunat cover the whole term which the .np- pointee claims. Cu any other theory the Congress of the United Statea raight extend the officeof the persona who bas beeu ai pomtid. Indefinitely throUghyeara and years, and thiis defeat fhe bPnstltutional ¦ provieion that the Pre sident ahall norainate apd ahall appointfor office for the wholeterm fbr which he was appointed. Thua, practi cally, Seuatore, it appears that the law cannot be made to apply to auy officee which were occupied at the time of ita ' Take the caae of au officer who holda his commiaaion at the pleasure of the Preeident, What Is the character of that teniu'e' It ia no tenure known to the law, it is a tenure at pleasure, at eufiferauie at will. To convert that to a teuure for afixed'time ie to* enlarge it, to extend it, to increase it, to make it of larger estate than It waa before; and if the otfice be one that cannot be tilled without a Pre aidential nominatiou and appoiutmeut, it eeeraa to me that, whatever mav be the oflice4 it canuot ^te extended ^d controlled In this way. This appeare to ae the con struction of the act of March 3, 1867. But I am compelled to leave it with this brief examination. Mr. Stanton is, in, my opinion, left where he was before ita passage. It ia further to be shown that tho act of March 2, 1867, hae no repealing clause. We are, therefore, remitted to the pre- vio^s-lawB applicable to this case, to the averments of the Constitutiou, and to the act of 1789. By the provisiona of thia law, it Ib provided, among other things, that there shall be an Executive Department, de-' nominated the Departraent of War, and that there ahall be aprincipal officer therein, to be called the Secretary for tbe Departmeut of War, who ahall perforra and execute sucb duties as ahall from time to time be enjoined upon him, and who ahall conduct the busineaa of auch depart ment iu such niauuer aa the President of the United Statea ahall from time to time order arid instruct, aud there ahall be in the aaid department an inferior oflicer to be ap poiuted bv said principal officer, to be employed therein OB be ahall deem proper, to be called the Chief Clerk qf tho Department of War, But whenever the aaid princi pal oificer ahall be reraoved from otfice by thd Preaident of the 'United Statee, or in any other case of vacancy, he shallhave charge of the recorda, hooka, &c„ Ibat is the law to which we are referred, unless the act regulating the tenure of civil officea, covers the case of Mr. Stauton. By the terras of that Jaw, by the corainieaiou that was is sued to Mr. Stantou to run during the pleaaure ot the Pre sident for the time being, fraraed upon this law, tlje Preai dent had the right to remove Mr. .Stanton according to bis TAt thia noint the ofifer of the counael f o apeak was with BO much apparent' eflFnrt, Senator FESSENDEN proposed that the counael should have permiaaion to auspend hie ar gument for tbe preeent, or until alter another argument had been preaented on the part of the managera. J Mr. GROESBECK returned his thanks to the Senator for bis kbidly suggestion, but saying be would be very thankful for the attention of the Senate to what he might- Bay, in the condition of voice In which he found himself, he thought he would prefer to go on with. his argument to' ita concluaion. He then said:- , We are told. Senators, by the gentleman who argued itnia caee, that there hae beeu no such case aa the removal iofthe head of a department without the co-operation of ' the benate, and that thia construction, which we chiira as applicable to this law, doea not apply. Let rae Ynll your .attention to the documenta, as found on pagee ^57 to S59 of these proceedings. I refer to the letter? of -lohu Adams, written under one of the extreme lawe tbat were paesed (bythe First Congreas under the Conetitution. 1 give you , the letter ot the 12th of May, 180U, which Ib ae follows :— I 'Sir— Divers causes and conaiderationa, eaaentisd to the ( aominiatration of the goveinment, in ray judgment, re- (luiring a ehange iu the Department of State, you are hereby dischaigid fnom any further eervice a.a Secretary of State. ¦ (Signed) ¦ "JOHN ADAMS, " „ „ "President of the United States. "To Tiraothy pickerlng.V ' That was the act of John Adams, by whose casting vote ,in the Senate, thia bill ^^¦aa paased. That act was done ac-' cording to the construction that was given to the bill, and is' an act uf outright removal during the aeeeion of the Senate, without the co-operation ot the Senate. The act ia done in May. The letter is addreaaed to the Secretary In his otiice, declaring him reraoved; and wheu Mr. Adams' comes to send hia nominatinn of a aucceeeor, he nominates' John Marshall, not "iu place of Mr, Pickering, to be re moved, with their aaaenf, but lu place of Mr. PIckei'ing re moved, by my- will, or in accordance with the law" now existing. Why Senators, there Is no doubt about It, If John- Adams, who passed this law iu the Seriate by hie caating vote, had the leaat idea that the power of removal was' not aa granted in thelaw. In hia owu handa, do the gen-' tleman auppo.«e that he wbuld have taken the courae he did' that he would uot have takeu aorae euch courae as this:' "Senatora, I propose for your conaideration the reraoval of Mr. Pickering, it tiiat waa not the conatruction ofthat law/ His acta, the true conetruction according to hia own inter-' pretation and aecordiug to the interpretation given from thatdiiy to thlB, dowu to the act orMarch 2, 1867, done. while the Senate was in eession', doue by himaelf wlthoufr tjousultation with or the co-operation of the Senate, and that wae the form which he adopted when he dld^renlbvel hira, ae a diii'tinct and Independeut act, and wliich hasf beeu adopted from that day to this.) ¦' While upon thia eubject let me call your aftoution, Sena- tpre, to the language of Johu MarahaU in the case of Mar-> bury ve, Madiaon. He whb diecueeing thu queetlon when: an appointraent wa? made, or when it wae coraplete, so. that ic was withdrawn from the control ot the President. He held that it was complete when the coraraiaaiou was^ made out; butin the course of the discuaaion he goes on to eay :— "When the officer ia removable by the President at the will of the Executive," &c. ; eo it has alwa3'B been un derstood "removable by the Preaident," that ie the lan-- guage. So the the commiaBlon ran, removable at tho pleasure of the Preaident for the time being." When? Ia aession? At bis pleasure? Iu term. In seasion? "Athls^ pleasure" is the . language ofthe commission, and the au thoritv that coutrola the commission and thelaw. Soit has always Deen construed. Now, Senators, if I am right view in .he view I have here taken, Mr. Stauton was not covered by the law, and waa aubiect to removal under the comraieeion which he leceived from Mr. Lincoln, and I beg you to obaerve that that law ia in full force. There is no attempt to repeal It in the act of March 3, 1867- That act, in fact, haa not a repealing clauee. What theu? What becomes ofthe first eight articlcB of thia case? Let ue stand at this poi!Ut for a moment. It is au excellent poiut .of obser vation frora which to look at these acts. We have removed oue dilficulty, we have aecertaiued oue fact, then; Mr. Stanton cau be removed bythe President. I ehould like to linger longer on this queetlon, and if I had voice sufiS- cicnt, I ahould like to cafl, your attention to aorae other pointa.-'! ahould like to read the language of oneof your Senators, eapecialR' fhe pertinent language of the Senator ou the coraraittee that reported this bill, I ehould like to read hia language which waa the laet utterance in this Chamber before the bill waa passed. But I paaa on, and I ask your attention, Seuators, to pause here a raoraent at thia poiut of observation and look over this caee. We have borne down the raain atructure of this great argiiirient. Take out the single question of the power of the removal -of Mr, Stantou from these eight articles, and you are with out support, and all you have left to consider la the single queation of the right to confer the letter of authority upon Lorenzo Thoraas. Why, Senators, we ehall aee more than' that If this be so. All through theee questions which have occupied eo much of the attention of the court, vaniah out 0^ eight ; for if we had this power we had the right to re move, and we were not bound to corae tjO court to aacer taiu that fact. Senatora, allow me to aeK you to conaider one other question. Suppose Mr. Stanton ia within tho Tenure of Office act, what theu? The queatinn then comes ' fervour conaideration, whether the Preaident ia criminal in acting upou the auppoaitiou that he was uot within the -act. Now, this inquiry doea not challenge the constitu-- tionality ofthe law. It Ib a queation of interpretation or conatruction of a doubtful law. Ia there a Senator in thia Chamber who will not admit, whatever hia view may be upon thia subject, that-it was not a law upon which any one might not attempt thia con struction? Why, I believe that a raajority ofthe Senate in this Chamber are of the opimon that It does not apply to 210 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDRlEW JOHNSON. the caae of Mr. Stanton, and even if they did think that it doef^, there would be a very small majority certainly, who would sny there waa not rpom for doubt, ae to'the couBti- tutionality of the law. Let me then refer, you to the act creatiug the office of Attorney-GpneraL:— , . "There ahall be alao a peraon learned in the law appointed Attornpy-General of.the United Statea, who shall be aworn, and whose duty bHoU be to proaecute _all suits iu the Supreme Court of the United States in which tbe United States shall be concerned, and to give hia ad vice aud opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States." I need not read fur ther. There was alaw, construe it aa you- will, in refer ence to tbe question of the operation of which there might- be a difference of opinion. No Seuator will diff'er as to the fact thatit might be interpreted as not covermg Mr. Stan ton'a caae byitaprovieions. Now Buppoae the Preaident of the United Statea, upou consulting upou the aubject, did con strue the law in that wav, Is there a Senator in thia cham ber who will fay that there waa any blame to attach to him on account of such an interpretation?, "¦ , I am aaauuiinghere that this law w as a law of doubtful conatruction as it ia, andif the Preaident availed himeelf of the counaels of his Cabiuet officer, who ia dcsiguated to do this special dutv, then he is acnuittcd of the charge vi( th< df wilfully niiaiuter pre ting it ; and, now, what is the testi- mony outhat eubject? It flho«B that coneultalaoua were held hetween the.President and his Cabiuet. Not Idle cpnsultatione, but (bnauUations lor the purpoactof deciding upon thia great and iraportant qkieation, and which, if you undertake to inveetlgate the queetinn of motive, you can not paaa by. It appeare that thia subject cameup for con sideration and it was takeu for granted that theee Cibiuet officers, who had beeu appointed by Mr. Liucoln, were uot affected by the proviaiuna of the Tenure of Otfice act. I ' do not remember that the point wae thus stated, but I re collect that it wae suggested by pne member of the Cabi net who waa appointed by Miv Lincoln,- and that no dis sent wae cx:presi5e,d. The Attorney-General, Mr, Stanbery, waa there— the entire Cabinet waa there— and thia eubject was conaidered, and thits very queation of couatructiou came up, and the opinion was expreaaed that he (Mr. Stan ton) waa uot included iu the provisions of the act. (The speaker's voice, vvhich had gradually become fainter, here became almost inaudible to the reporters,) > He conaidered thia the raoet important point in this case, but should this vdew not be coiTect and the law did apply to Mr. Stauton, the next inquiry was whether the conduct of the President Iu removing Mr. Stanton waa crirainal. Senatora who participated aalegislatora in the paaaage of thia very law aud had affirraed ita constitutionality, in the un'fortuuate conditioin of this case, became the judgee,' and, therefore, they must not be understood as arguing the point with a view to change their opiniona or to show fhat the law was unconstitutional. ' That was not his object. It was to preeeut the inquirv whether, in the coudltion of the question and in the condition of the Piesident, he had a rlgnt to take the steps he did take without Inctirrlng the charge of criminality. Our governmenl ia compoaed of three departments. Power has been dlBtributed among thera, and thev are each Independent of the other; no one reapouaible to the other. They are responsible to the peo ple, and they are enjoijied each to take care of ita own pre rogatives, aud to protect itaelf againet all possible encroach ment from the other. . . This they do, each and every departraent, by obaerving with the utmost fidelity the instruction of the written Con- stitution. At the head of oue of these departments, the executive, etauda the President of the United States; heia aworn by an oath, the raoat solemn obligation that. could be administered, faithfully to execute the office of President, aud to preserve, protect and defend the Consti tution. Itisnot au oath raerely to execute the laws, but also to the best of hie ability to preserve, protect and de fend the Couetitutiori. It would seera that euch an oath would impress hira with the Idea that the first and para mount duty of the executive was to act according to the terms of the Constitution, and that in all trial - and doubta he ahould take shelter uuder it. The learned inanagera contended that the Preaident ahould aiiuply execute the laws pasaed by Congreea and no more. ^That was not the interpretation tlijvt ehould he giveu to the language of the ConBtitution. Hp was the Chief Magistrate of the nation and in charge of ono of the great departments of the governinent, and must maiutain the powers conferred by the Conatitution on , that department; but shall he dis regard a lan', "never." 'He should never lu mere wantonneee diaregard any act of Congress in any manner. Shall he execute alLlaws? Be took issue with the learned inauager on this point in toto. According to the Oieory ofthe managera, the Preaident should be convicted of a crime even though the law was not coustitutional. He denied this. If a law he derlarcd by the Supreme Court, thethfrri department ofthe govern ment, and hv the very terras of the Constitution itself the highest and final arblierof the constitu tionality of Con- grcsaipnal euactnient. if that court i hould declare a law to be unconstitutioual the President would be fa-lae to hia oath of otfice if he ahould expcite that law. He would tell the fentleman. in answ er to hii long argument, that if a law e unconstitutional it waB no law; it never waa a. law and never nad a particle of validity, although itmight be in the form of a Congn.'siioDaleiiaf.traent. Frora tho beginning a6 initio it ii^ no ifiw, andis vid, n 'd to execute It is a viola tion of the Constitution, Thcrefora ho should not execute Bl^Chalaw. „ Again, if a law be upon.itfl very face in blank contradic- tipn to the plainly expressed provisions of the Constitut on, aa, for instance, a law declaring that the President should not be Comraander-iri-Chlef of the Army and Navy, or declaring thnt he had nP -poWer to make treaties, the Pre- sfdeSt Sfonld, without.toiug to'the Supreme Court, mam tain theintegritv of his department, which, for the tune being, ieintriidted to hira, and is bound to execute no such , law He would be untrue to hie high official position if he Bhould execute that law. But the difficulty waa uot here; the ditiiculty ariaea in doubtful cashes, m cases which are not plainly atated in the ^institution, and thie^aa the nues^iou of . inquiry in the present case. The law of mter- Setaion to be^observed in dou btful cases ™ a pomt o which he called the attention of tj^e Seniate. IlewouW notluestion the constitutionality of the renure of Office actf He did not challenge ita constitutionalityjiere, he- Si^e the Senate had affirmed It. He would^ therefore aimtly read a few opinions of the Suprerae Courtand quote froraX)ther standard authorities in regard to thia CLueation. The counael here read at length several decisiona on thia point, and theri proceeded with the argument. Now, Senators, I have called your attention to the de cision of the quesflnn^by the court, .Ihave given ypu the utterance from the bench. I have given you the opimons of Marahall, and of Kent, and now let me refer you to the Execntive Deipartment. From the. beginning of the go vernment down to March 2, 1867, It has been the uniform conatruction aud practice of every admimstration thatit had the power of removal. Washimrton approved of the bill; Adams voted for it; Jeffersou mainta,inedit; Madison drew it up; Monroe and Jackson raaintained the same Pon«tructiou of it. Every Preaident, including Preeident Lincoln, through all our hiatory of ei.ghty years, and of twenty administrations, maintained this constrno. tion ou the queation of where is the power ot removal °'J he Judicial Departraent baa concurred In the con8fa;nc- tiou that the power of removal ia lodged by the Conatitu. tion In the Prefiident. The Executive Departraent, from Washington down, through all the Pretideuts, has acted on thia conatruction aud affirmed thia practice. Washmgton called the attention of the First Congreea to the fact that the Executive Departmeuta under the old Confederation had ceased to exist, and that it waa necessary to organize new and corresponding ones under the new government, and he euggesfed that, before Congrese legislated on the subject, it should, Iu,debate,'fix the principlea and deter mine the number of departmeuta necei-eary. ConCTeaa at once entered ori tbe'subject, aud agreed to establish three departments. , . ,. ,. ^ At thia point ofthe argument the court, at quarter past two, took a recess for a quarter of an hour. Mr. GROESBECK resumed hia arguraent, comraencing by reminding the court of the points he had been callmg ita attention to before the recess. He expressed hia aaton. iBhirient at Mr. Boutweff'e summirig up of the di:bate of 1789, and declared, with all respect to the honorable inana* ger, thatthe statement was nnt authorized by anything that occurred iu that debate. The only question that waa diecusaed and eettled in that debate, waS w hether the power of removal ^^-aa lodged in the Piesident alone, or lodged in the President and Senate,.- and It was decided that the power " aa in the President alone. The phrMO- ology ofthe bille .was changed so that all appearance of a gi-aqtof the power from the Legis-lature raignt be avoided)^ ane that Congress might appear aa siraply recogniziugthfi. fact that the power was vested by the Conatitution m the' Prciddeu^. He had stated accurately the substance ofthe debate, and chiillenged all cou tradiction. What had followed? That Congrese had pasaed three billa establishing three Executive Departments^ and in the language of Chief Juetiee Marshall, it had, in order to avoid legislative" instability ou that question, framedthoEe billB so that ihcy -should not take the form of a grant from the Leeij-lature. but should appear aa fl, coustitutio'nalui- terpretation. These- laws were In force to thia day ; they were iirofessedly au interpretation of the Constitutlonj were so declared by the Supreme Com t ; were bo declarea and treated be the Congress which passed them, and were BO regarded by every subsequent Congreas .down to the Thii-ty-uinth Congreaa. ~ ^ He would pass on for nine years, an d come down to 1788. Another executive department was then formed, called the Navy Department, and in the law creating it; the power of removal waa recognized in the phraseology, 'm case Pf vacancy by removal or otheVwite." The wor^ were nbt "removal by the President;" the idea being con veyed that it was a power lodged by the Constitution m the President, Hb pasat-d on for twenty years— to ths creation of the Poet Office Department, the law crpating -which contained thie provision :— "In case of the resigna tion or removal from oifice of the Postmaster- General. It did not say bv whom the removal was to be made, but it adopted the preceding laws in reference fo which it was distinctly understood that they were interpretatlona of the Constitution, acknowledging that the power of removal wae lodged in the Preaident, and therefore not neceesary to be cqnferredby expreaa grant. Theu he came to the act of March, 1849, creating the In terior Department, and providing that the Secretary of the Interior waa to hold hie otfice by the earae teuuj-e, and tp receive the same salary as the eecretaries of the other de- partmente. Under that law the Secretaryof the Interior waa removable at pleasure. Then he Came to the law ea tabliehiug the eeventh departnient, fhat pf the Attorney General, In the law establishing that office there waanot one word said on the aubject ot removal or vacancy, but the Attorney General had taken hisCommwsiPn during the pleasure of the President for thb tirae being, and had been subject to reraoval by the Preadent just as any other of the beads of the departments. ^ IMPEACHjVIENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 211 . He had thus gone through the legialation eatabllshlng the executive departmenta ranging frora 1789 to 1849, a pe riod of sixty yeara,- and showing the principle that the power of removal was recoguized HB bein^ lodged by the Conatitution iu the President, But that was not all. Ho might cite a large nuraber of laws on the subject of other ofiicere, auch aa poBtmastera, fee, and bearing out the same Idea. He stated, not from his own exaraination, but from iuforraatlou ou which he could rely that if all the laws of Congress were collected from 1789 to 1867 which affirmed thia Conatruction, they would average two or three to each Congreaa. The law of March, 1867, came into work Pn tho concur rent chain of conatitutiPnal Interpretation, but he would ask Senators whether human reaaon might not pause here and human' judgment doubt on this question. All the Preeidoute had affirmed the Conetitution had ai-.tedoU it for eighty years; the Suprerae. Court had affirmed it; thirty- eight Co..greaaeB had coucurrPd iu it. All thiB was on the one aideo, the question, and on the other side there was the actiou ot one Congreaa. Mightnot, therefore, human reason pauee and human judgment doubt? Waa it ci'iinl- Ual in the Preeident to stand by that gi-eat maas of prece dent and to believe as thirty-eight Congreaeea had be lieved; as all Adrainii^tratlPus had believed, and aathe Supreme Court had affinned, that the power of removal from office was veeted by the Couetituiion In the Preei deut? That was the question thia court wae to decide. ¦ Did Senatora believe that at the tirae Andrew Johnson honeetly thought that the ConBtitution lodged the power of removal In the hands of the Preaident? What should be the effect of thia long line of interpretation by every department of the government? What rule ahould be ap plied? Stability waa as much needed iu regard to powers not'expreaeed in the Constitution as iu regard to tliofe aa are express ed. If it waa to be fixed by intorpretiition and decision. When was it to be regarded as fixed? In five hundred yeara? Thev would all agree to that. In four' hundred yeara? He thought they would all agree to that. In two hundred years? Yea, in one hundred years? Yta ! Well, here waa a construcriou and interpre tation existing for Boventy-eight years. If this government was e-ver to bave atabilitv in its luatltutioua it rauBt adopt aud adhere to the rule of State decisus. The Thirty-uiuth Corigreefl alone had given a different interpretation of the Cnnstitu- tioir. He did not propose to inetitiite any comparison be tween that Congresa and any preceding one. He would uot eav that it was uot juat aa able and in just as good condition aaauy other to off'er a correct opinion, but he would eay that It was no better. This brought hjm' to the question, whether the Seuate was prepared to drive the President frora his office and convict hira of crirae be cause he had believed aa every other Preeideut before him bad believed, aa the Supreme Court had believed, and as tbe Thirty-eighth Congress had believed? Waa Mr, John son to lie down with nis hand upon his mouth, and his mouth in the dust, before Congreaa? or was he to stand up fls the Chief Magistrate of the nation iu the great contetit to deleud the Integrity of his departmeut? It waa for the Preeidi. nt to execute the laws, to execute even doubtful laws; but when he waScalled upon to execute' a law agaiuat which all precedents' were arrayed, against which all the voices of the past were sounding in his ears; waa he not justifiedin seeking to get a judicial interpretation of the question, and waa the Senate to undei-take to brand bim ^\ ith criniiuality because he propoaed to go to the Su preme Court and have a decision on the question. He (counael) should have referred alao to the Preaideut'a conduct ou the subject in reference to hia consulting those who are by law his advisers and counsellors. The Senate had shut out many of, these facte and would not hear the evidence upon tbem. Suppose it had bePn brought to the attention of Senators that ou a serious and iraportant ques tion like this the Prcrideut had disregarded the advice of his Cabinet, had turned his back upon his counsellors, had held no consultation with thein, but had in wilfulness and disregard of their wishes acted in the mauner he had The managers would probablv have pnt that in evidence' against hira. but yet the fact that he could prove ]uat the contrary wae excluded from' testiraony. What Was Mr,- Johuson»s condition? He had Cabinet oificers who were unfriendlv to hira personally and politically. Allconfa- dential relatione betwef n them had been broken off, 1 liat officer himself hiid told the Siraate, iu a letter dated as lately as the 4th of Februarv, 1868, that he had no corres pondence with the President sinqe the 12th of August last, and had received no ordera from him. It thua appears tbat tbat Cabinet officer V.' as merely a nnn-execiuive re pudiating the Preaident, having no official communication with hira, and proposing to have none, and propoaiug to carry on hia department without recognizing even the Prcaldent'B name. . . Thia was the condition of President Johnson when be communicated with General Sherman, and counsel would read to the Seuate what General Sherman's testimony on that point waa. General Sherman said:- ^Tintend to be very precise aud very short, but' it appeared to me nece^ Borv to etato what I began to state, that the President told methat the relations between him and Mr, Stanton, and between Mr. Stanton and the other merabers of the Cabi net, were such that he could not execute the office which be filled, as Preeident of.the United States, without makiug provision adinterim for that qffice, ajidth«t he bad file right under the law. He claimed to h^ye the right, and hia purpoae was to have the, ofhce administered. in the intereat of the army and the country, andhe offered me tlie office iu that view. He did not state tome then that it waa bis purpose to bring it tpthe courts directly, but for the purpose of having the oflice administered pro- porly lu the Intereat ofthe armv and ofthe whole country," Ihat was the couditlon of thinga with a Cabiuet otficer who relused all intercoiuae. Counael did not iutcnd to go into any inquiry as to who was rieht or wrong; he merely atated tho naked fact. Thia Cabiuet officer had refueed all intercoiirpe, aud was proposing to carry on his departmeut without coramunicating with the Preeident. aud aa a sort of secondary executive. In that condition of thinee, was It not the duty of the Chief Magistrate to make a change? Ihere was not aSenator before hira who woiild,uot have raade the change. It wae Irapossiblo to administer the de partmeut while there were wranglings and controversies, and want of coufidence between the head of the depart raent and the President. In that necesalty It waa that Mr. Johnson had moved to procure a change in the depart- ' ment. If he had sued out a writ of quo warranto, as the manager suggested, he would have been laughed at aud ridicirled, becauee a determination of it could uot have boen reached before a year, and because it wae reported at the time that hi^ would be Impeached and reraoVed in ten, twenty, or thirty days. , But Mr- Stantou had brought a suit against Geueral Thomae, and had had him arrested. There was tho Preai dent'a opportunity ; by reaaon of that he could reach a nice deciaion instantly. The Preeident enatched at it, but it waa auxioualy euatchcd away from him. The raanagers had talked nf force— where waa the force? Where was there ono single bitter, peraonal interview in all that transac tion? There waa not aquarrelaorae word with anybody. Tho only force oxhibitcd wae In the cPrdial erabrace be tween General Thomaa and Mr. Stanton, with the oue putting his arra around the other and running hii fingers affectionately through his silver locks. That was the '•force, intiraidatlon aud threat" that was used, and that waa about all there was of it. . Counael for the Preaideut had oft'ered to bring here the raembers of the Cabiuet to tcf-tify as to what their advice was to the Preaident on the subject. They had consulted on that very queation, but yet the Senate would not hear thom ; it abut their months and remHuded the'defentie to tho man frora Dela\\ arCi 'ihe Senate waa asked to find the eraployraent or the in tiraation to employ forqe from the utterancea of that man tipom Delaware, and. from the converaation, or at mid night masquerades oi a man dreaaed in a little brief au thority, and yet the Senate would uot hear the delibera- tione of the Oabinet, the couaultationa which were held on that verv queati'iu when fho traneactiou waa warm in the minds of the partiea; there was no rescuing this trial from the manifest impertectlon of the teetirabny on that poiut. Now, what was the Presideut's course? Why did he give thia let^r of authority to Lorenzo Thomas? He had to do it. There was uo other way he copld adopt by w hich he could put the case in a condition to teat thelaw. If the Preaident had'uoiniuated to the Senate the offi.ce would have remained in the 'exact condition it was without. noraination, and, therefore, it waa ueceaeary by an ar rangement of , thia kind to get into the office one wlio could repreaeut the governraent on that question. The Preaident'a intention iu all the movement was aimply to get rid of that defiant, friendly Secretary. Counael uaed thia-expreasion without conveying any per aonal aentlmeut. what had the President done in the first place? He had eelected General Grant, a raau whom the couutry deliehted to honor, iu whora it had the utraost confidence, and for ^ hom probably the honorable manager, Mr. Butler, intended to expreaa still greater confidence. The Prcdideut had eelected such a man as that, acd yet thia waa to be regiirded as a mL-tchievoust tranaaction. What uext did the Preaident do? The very uext stop that the President took waa, not to geta dangerous man, not to get a man In whora the Senate had no confidence, but the next mau to whom he offered the place waa General Sher man-would any one charge wickeduees upou that high officer?. But Geueral Shermau would not take the office. To whora did he uext off'er it? To Major General George H. Thomas. Itseeraed that the Preaideut had picked out the three meu of all others in the nation who could com mand the respect and confidence of the nation in reference to the purpoae he had In view In the matter. You cannot make crirae out of thia. Senators. The Piesident had oue purpose iu view, and that was to change tho head of the War Departmeut, and it would have delighted hira to make the change, aud put there permanently auy competent man, aud thus get rid of the condition of his Cabinet. What then, gentleraen? He ex.* ecuted thislawin other .reapects. He changed the forms ofhis commisaions: be reported auspeuBiouB under this' law, and, Senators, it ia oue of the atrongest facts In this caee. He did not take up thia law and tear it to pieces ; ho did uot take thie law and trample it usder foot: and iu all other respects ha tried to obey it without the surrender of hia own convictions. It is aaid that in the auapention of Mr. Stauton ho acted underthelaw. I caunot adjuat It to your law J and iuatead of eeizlug upon that aa a subject of' censure, I tell you it was an overture from thePreaident' to get out of thiB difficulty and to conciUate you. Take that suspension— take the act. In the very letter of the mesaage of Buspension he tells you m.y Cabinet, and Mr, Stauton the moat emphatic of all, believe this law Ib un conBtitutional. Mr. Stanton was the one that was aelected to draw up these objections. But the • President tella you in that act I of suspension what his viewa were about the law. He foes on and tella you further iu that very meeeage :— "We ad thia raatter up In theCabinet meeting, when the Se cretaries aaid it did not apply to him or to any other of Mr. Liucolu'fl Cabinet." • All theee opinions were in bis ipind. Ke communicated, tbem |n the very measage 212 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. where you aav be surrendered himself to the tenfis' of the Civil Office biU. He did all that, and it ia to hia credH that he has not gone about everywhere violating thp law, in structing its violatiou or forbidding it to be exerciaed uu til it waa ascertained as to Its constitutionality in some way or another. Well, now,I have been sitting here listening to the evidence preaented in thia case for a lorig time, and reading more or less about it, and I have never been able to come to the conclusion that, when all these matters were placed before the Senate, and understood, they could convict the President of crirainality for doing what was done. / .There ia no force— where la it? Where ia the threat? Where ia the intimidation? Nowhere. He did to get into the courts; that we Know. He did his best to get it there ; ran after a caee by which he could have got it there. Where ia hia crirainality? Is he criminal because he did not surrender the convictions Pf hia mind on the conatitu- tioualitv,- according to your interpretation of the act of 1867? Why, ao was General Wa«hiuf^tou criminal; so waa AdaniB criminal. But the precedent in the whole hiatory of the governraent is at hie back in the position which he hae taken. How are we-golng to try crirainality upon thia sinple question of the Constitutionality of the act of 1867, having the opinion of every Congress at his back, the opimon of the administrations, andthe opinion of the Supreme Court, aa far as it goea? Let us. go back a raoment to that brief examination which I made of the right construction of- the civil office act. Itold vou then that if Stauton were not included, the first eight articles of J thia case aubstantially fell, and even if he were included, and we were advieed aa we were, there could be np crirainality in acting upon a quea tion ot laiv under the advice of the Attorney-General, who waa olficlally designated foi* the very purpose of giving ub that advice. So that from that point of view, suppose Stauton were under the law, and we had no excu^"e fur what he did, then the question is, where in the condition ot this question was the power of removal lodged? ¦ You may have your own opinion about Jhe constitu- tioualltv, but there is another questiou which I present. It ia this;— It is a question of conatruction. Will you con- deran aa criminal a Preaident who atoud onthe sidt where, every decision of the governmeut had been up to that. time? I come noW, gentlemen, to the next question about the ad i7iterimappoiutment, audi beg vou to observe thaU' if vou ehall corae to the conclueion that the Preaident had the right to make an ad ^'nterim. appointment, theu thereis great sliipu reck in his caee. It nearly all tumblee into ruin. I beg you again, when you ct»me to exaraine these articles, to eee bow raany of thera are built upon the tuo facts— the removal of Stauton and the ad interim appoints meur of Thomaa. He made the appointriient, Senatoi-s, under the act of February 13, 1795, Mr. Groesbeck read the law which authorizes tho Preei dent, in caae of a vacancy in the ofliceB of thb Secretary of State and of War, to authorize a person to perform the duties of such otfice until a succeseor shall be appointed, and continued:— You will observe that all possible con ditions of the departmeut are expreefted under the aingle word, "vacancy." It covers the reraoval, the expiration of the terra of office, resignation, absence, elckneaa—every posBible condition of the departraent in which it would be neceat-ary ad interim to supply the place. That law waa paased ori February 13, 1795. There naa beeu another act paaaed partiallv covering the earae ground* under the date of February 20, 1863. Now, doea that^ct repeal the act of February 13. 1795? Allow me to draw your attention to a few rules of interpretation of Btatutea before I corapare tbem:— First, The law does not favor repeals by implication. Agaiu, if statutes are to be construed together they are to stand. Still anotlusr, a better atatute inorderto repeal a former one muat fiilly embrace the whole aubject matter. Still again, to effect an entire repeal of all of the prov^Ious of the previous statute the whole subject matter muet be covered. Let mc illustrate. Suppose, for Illuatration, there waa a statute extending from mvself to yonder door; then if another statute were paeeed which.- would reach half way. itwould repeal so much ofthe' former statute ae It overlay, and leaye the balance in force. Whatliee beyond isthelegisrativotwiU, and just aa binding aa the original statue. Now we come to a compariBon of these etatutes. - The statute of February 20, 1862, provides forthe occasion of death, resignation, absent from tbe seat of government, or sickness. There are two caaea that aro not provided for by thia statute, and they are covered by the statute of 1795 -removal and expiration of terra ; ao that we are adviised by that simple stateraent that the reach of the statute of 1796 was beyond fhat of the statute of February, 1863, and Bo.rauch of it as lies beyoud tbe latter . statute is etlll in force. ' ' With theee few remarks - upon tbe repeal of Btatutes I corae to the consideration of the ad interim, letter. From the foundation nf tho government, aayou bave been ad vised by my colleague (Mr. Curtis) and others. It haa beeri the policy, of the governraent to provide for filling offices ad, intervm,. They are not appointments. There is no com missiou under seal, Itis a mere letter of appointment, aud they are not considered aa filling the oifice. •' When Mr. Upshur was killed, in 1844, an ad interim ap- upintment waa made to supply the vacancv occasioned hy tbwt accident, and soon afterwards the President norai nated to theSenate JV&. Cakhoun to fill the oflice perraa nently.. That iUnstratoB the condition af an ad interim iu tbeomce. It has been tho policy of thd government from the>beginnlng to thua supply vacancies in the department &om sickueBB, absence, resignation, or any of those causes, and tbis occurs both when the Senate ia in eeasion and i when it is in receaa. The law bf 1863 makes no ditterence. It may be at any time. , . , Now, Senators, 1 " ill dismiss this part of the eubject by; calliug your attentioii, to ad interim appointraentB that, weremade during the seaaion; of heads of departmenta;. In the firat plabe I give yon Mi'. Nelaon, v\ho waa ap- pointedLduring the seeainn of the Senate, Secretary of the, State. I give you Geueral Scott, who waa appoiuted ad interim. Secretary of Waf" during the eeaeion of the Seuate. , I give you Mr- Mo-etj Blelley, who waa appointed adin--} icrim during the aeaaion of the Senate to tuo Department of the Interior. Igive you Mr. Holt,vpho wae apoointed, att I'uierm, during the aession of the Senate, Secretaryof War. But I intend to linger a little at the caee oiMf... Holt, which deserves especial consideration and attention^ Mr. Groe6beckread;from the meaaage of Preeident Bitn chanan of January 1, 1868, in reply to a reaolution of xa^v. quiry by the Senate in regard to the appointmeiit,of MTk Holt to Bucceed John B. Floyd, andcontiuuedi—Tberewas a caae where the Seuate took the mafter under conaidera tion and inquired of the President what be had done, and bvwhat authority he had done it. Why did you uot do> that? Why did you not report upou it? A tull inquiry waa made by the Senate into that case of this ad intervm queation, and Mr. Buchanan replied that he had auppliedi the vacancy hy an ad interim appointment under the law* of 1795. He communicated that fact to thii Seuate/ The Senate received that coramunication, and, wore satiafied that it waa res adjudicata on his part. The Seuate, on tliat ocpaaion, inveetigated thoroughlyi this Identical qiieation oJ? ad Mi^mm-appointments during.! the eeasion, and received Mr. Buchanan's replv that he didr It under the very law under which we -acted, aud 'the; Senate did uot censure that act, while they bring ua for^ \\ ai'd aa a criminal and brand us with crime for oura. YoUi canuot discriminate between them. Both were donel under the uame law, both done dui'ing the aeaaion. I ahall i;lance uow at the uext article, I do not Intend to linger upou such charges aa are contained lu it It makes a, , great noiae in the articlee, but Itia very hard to see thrgught I It. What Is the proof to sustain this article? The Wreai-' ' deut had an intjcrview with General Emory, and iu the. course of that interview General Emory iuformed him of the paaaage of a certain law. They had a conversation about it, and the Prealdput said. In the couree of that con^, versation, that the law was unconstitutional. He did not say anything more ; and that ia the euormous cruue com mitted uuder article nine. He said it waa uuconatitutional. What about that? Is it not in evidence before you and uncontradicted that the Preaident had been iuformed that there were uuuaual military movementa going oa in the^ city the night before; aud Secretary Wellea called upon' hiin to iuf orm hira of that fact, and the President aaid hOi woul]d inquire about it? He sent a note to Geueral Emory, and General Emoryt wafted upon hirii with the information. -That is all. IB. that not au explanation? Doea anybody contiadict it? Nol The time the occasion, everything in the tranaaction adjusts itself to that explanation, aud no otber. Here waSt a Preaident whom you naa subordinated to an inferior- I; mean to the extent of requiring himto send orders through au inferior— groping in the darlc, aa it were, called upon Syi one of hia Cabinet to iuquiro about it. I now come to article ten. I shall leave the elaborate diacussion of this article to my colleague, but I wish to eay. jliBt a few words about It. I refer you to the provision of , the Constitution bearing upou this subject, whicii denies"' to Congress the power to deny freedom of speech. Ave' there auy liraitatione of thie provision? Doea thia privjloge ¦belongonly to the private citizen? Is it denied to offiijers' of the governraent? Cannot the Executive discuss the measures of any department? MayCongresB aet itaelf up < ae the standard of ^od taate? Is it for Congress to pre- ecribe the rulea of Preeidential decorum? "Will it not bei quite enough for Congreaa' to preaerve its owu dignity? Cau it preacribe the forma of expn salon which may bff' UBcd. and punish by impeachment what Congreas cannot forbid In the form of a law? But I do not propose to dis- cuBsit. In 1798 some of the good people ot the country. who had beeu operated upon vn-y rauch as the House of Representativee were in this iristance, took it into their. heads to make a aeditiPn law. It was very like article ten. I propose to read It. Mr. Groesbeck read the law punishing libeUoua publico* tions or utterances against the President or Congreas by fine and imprlBonment, and proceeded:— Thia waa tho. moat off'euaive that hae over bpen pasaed aince the govem ment was stai'ted. So obnoxious was it that the people would noti'eet under it, arid they started, as it were, a hue and cry againat everybody who was. concerni^d in it, and,' they devoted a great manv, for their connection « ith this' laW, to a political de&th. But it was agreat law compared With article ten. So unpopular was It that siuce then no law puuishing libel, from that day to this, has been paeaed. It haa been reserved for the House of Reproeentatlues, through Ita managera, to. renew thia questionable propo sition ; but I take it upon myeelf to auggeat that before we are conderaned iu a court of impeachment, we shall have some law upon tho aubject. Mr. Groesbeck then read a burleaquelaw, with a number^ of preambles, which created con-^Iderable laughter, reciting the dhty of the Preaident 'to observe official docorura and to avoid the uaef of unintelligible phraeea, euch aseailing.. Congreea "a body hangirig on tho verge of the goverji* ment," and recognising the'rUbt of Congrosa, andeape^ cially tbe Houee of Representatives, to lay down rules of decorum to be observed, punishing tbe President by fine- IMPEACHMENT 0? ANDREW JOHNSON- 213 and impriaonment for any breach of Buch decorum. "That^''^he said, "ia article ten." (Laughter.) He then tnok up article two, saying there was no testi mony to aupport it, except the telegi'am between Governor Parsons, of Alabama, and the President, dated on the I5th day of January preceding the March in which the lavv was fiassed. 'J hey had heard the magnificent oration of one of he managera about it, sounding, ^nd sonorous, and een^a- tioual, but would they uphold that article upou euch proof aa that? He had now gone jaa far as he need go, rince ho wae to be followed by a gentleman who would take it , lip, atep by atep, article by article. Looking ijack over the caae, he was glad to be able tp sav there were no political questions involved in it. The quea tions were, i\ hore is the power of reraoval lodged by the Gonatijjution? Is that covered by the Civil Tenure act? Could the President make an aa interim appointraent? Did he do anything miachicvous in his interview with General Emory? and then the matter of freedom of apepch whichhe apprehended nobody would carry on his back aa a heavy load for the remainder of hia llfe.atripped of all verbiage. Thatwas the case upon which their judgsnent was asked. ( It shocked him to thirik It oossible that the Preeident could be dragged from hie office ou such ques- tlona as vvhether hecouldmakeanadrnt^imappolutment for a siugle day. 'W'as this a matter jiiatif.vlug the dicturb- ing the quiet of the people, shaking their coundeuce in the Pi'eaident, aud driving niin from office? How meagre, he said, how miserable Is this caee— an ad imterim appoint ment for a siugle day, an attempt to remove Edwin M, Stanton, wbo atood defiantly and poisoned all the chau- nela of intercourse with the President, I do nut apeak thia In'cenaure of Mr. Stanton. butBUch ia the fact. We have beeu referred to many prebedeuts in tho past history cf Englaud; but those precedents ahould be to you, Senatora, not mattere for imitation, but the beacen lights io warn you from tho dangerous rocks ou which thbv tand. What is to be the judgment. Senators? Reraoval frora office and perpetual disiiualification? If thePreai- ' ^dent hae done anything for whicii ho ehould be removed from otlice, he should alao be disqualified frora holding office hereafter. What la hia crirae?> Hu tried tp pluck a thorn out of his heart, for it had become a thorn there, and the Seuate had fastened it there. What more bad he done? He had made an ad interim appointment, to 14|St for a single day, which you could have tormiuated who ever you saw ht. You had only to take the nominatiou which he seut to the Senate, and which was a good norai nation, and the ad int&rimi would have vaniahed like emoke. 'ihe thing waa in your hands. You had only to act on the nomination, and the matter waa settled. That was no crime. I cau point you to cases that have occurred, and I point especially to tnat case of Floyd's, where the Senate, m ita legislative capacity, weighed the question, decided upou it, beard the repprt of the President, and. received it as satisfactory. For the purpose of this trial, that is res ad judicata. What elae did the President do? He talked with au-officer aboutthc law. That is the Eraory article. What else did he do? He made Intemperate apeeches. When reviled, he should not have reviled again. When smitten on the oue cheekj he ahould have turned the other, tben he would have escaped Inipeachraeut. ' "But," aaid ¦the gentleman who addressed you the day tiefore yeatei- day— Mr. Boutwell— "He waa eager foj pacification, and to restore the South." I deuy it in the sense in which the fentleman preaented it aa being crirainal. Here, too, the 'resident followed reason, aud trod the path on which were the foot-prints of Lincolu, aud which wm lightened bv the radiance' of that divine utterance of Lincolri'e, "Charity towarda all, malice towards none;" '/He was eager for pacification. He knew that the war wasended; the drums were all ailcnt ; the araenils were ^ afll shut ; the noise of the cannon had died, and the array bad disbanded. Not a single enemy confronted us In the field, and he was eager for pacification, The hand of reconciliation was stretched outto him, and be took it. Was thia kindneaa- this forgiveueesa-a crime? Kindness a crirae! Kindness is omnipotent for good ; raore powerful than gunpowder or cannon. Kindness la etatesraanahlp, Kindneaa ia the high atatesraauahip of heaVeu itrclf. The ''thunder of Sinai did but terrify and diatract. It ia the kindness of Calvary that siibduca aud pacifies. What shall I say of thatmau? He has ouly walked In the path and by the light of the Constitution. The mariner, tem- peBt-toFsed on the seas, is not more sure to turn to the stars For guidance than this mau in the trials of public life to look to, the i^tar of the ConBtitution. He does look totbe Conatltiltion; It haa been tht- atudy of his life. Heis not learned or acholarly like many of you. He ia not a riian of many Ideas, or of much speculation. He is a man of in telligence. He is a patriot secoud to no' ono of you in the measure of his patriofiam. He may be full of errors. I win not canvass how he views his love to his country, but I believe he woidd die for it if need be. His courage and his patriotisra are not without illustration. -My colleague referred, the other day; to the scene which occnrred ih this charaber when he alone, of all the Sena- torsf rom his sectton, remained, and eveu when hie own Statd had seceded. Thatwas a trial of which many of you, bv reason of vour locality and of your lifelong asaoci- atlonai know nothiug. How his voice rang out in this hall on that occaeion. In the hour of alarra, and In denuncja. tionof the Rebellion! But he did not remain here. This waa a Jileaeant and easy position. He choaea more diffi cult, and arduous and perilous servitje. That was a trial of his courage and patriotiara of Which eome of you who noW'BitIn judgment upon him know nothing. I have thought that tliose Who dwell at the North at a safe diatance from the collision of war, know biit little of its actual trying dangers. ¦ We who lived upnn the border know it. Our homes were alwaya surround d with red flame, and it sometlriieB came eo near that we feli the heat on the outstretched handa. Mr. Johnson vfeut Into the very bordere of the war, and there he aerved hia country long and well. Whieh pf you haa done more? N^itone. Ihcre ia one araong yoU whoae aorviccs, aa PweU know, cannot be over estimated, and I withdi-aw all comparison; but it ia enough to say that his services were^greally needed, and it seems hard, it seema cruel that he Bhould be struck here, upon these miserable technlcalltiea, or that anybody who h!\d aerved hia couutry and borne hiraaelf well and bravely, ehould be treated aa a criujlnal, and condemned upon'these miserable charges. Even if he had committed a crime againat the laws, his services to the country entitle hira to aome consideration. '. '-B'uf "he hAB precedent for everything he has done. Ex cellent precedenta 1 The voices of the great dead come to ua from their graves sanctioning hia course. All our'pa^t historv approves it. Canyon single out thia man now iu thia condition of things aud brand hira before the couutry? Will vou put your brand upou him becauae he mado an ad interim appointraent and attempted to reraove Edwin M. ¦Stantou? I cau at a siugle glance. Senators, fix my eve on many of you who would not endure the poaition the Preai deut occur led, You do not thiuk it right youraelvea. You framed this verv t!Ivil Tenure act to give everv President hie own Cabinet, and then the Preaident'a whole crirae ia that he wauts an oflicer in the War Departraent with whom he can cnrairiunicate on public busiueae and enter tain friendly relationa. ^, Senators, I ara too tired, and no doubt you are. There is a great deal crowding on rae for utterance, but it ia not frora ray head, it is rather from ray heart, and would be but-a repetition of what Ihave been eaying this laat half hour. Andrew Johnson, administrator of the Pi-esidential oifice, iato me as nothing iu pomparieon with the poaaible conaequencea of your action in the' governraent of the country. No good can corae of couviction on the articles of iiripeachraeut. But how rauch will the heart of the couritry rejoice if it letirns that the United Statea Seuate waa not unraiudful araid the atorin, and-paaaion, and atrife, of this power of the Conatitution, and of ita country, and of itB own dignity. , , , Mr. Groesbeck was, throughout the whole argument. but particiilarlv at the close, listened to -with raarked at tention by the Senate, and with straining cagernesa by the spectators. It wae to be regretted that, ou accountfof indis position, he could uot make hlraeelf heard distinctly, t The reporters for the Aaaociated Preae, anxioue aa they w ere to giv e a verbatira report of the apeech , were unable to do so frora the ditficulty of hearing it in the gallery, and had, therefore, to put much of it in the third person, and in other parta to construct the sentences out of the portions which they did i^appen to*hear dietlnctly. ,, , . The court, at halr-paat four, adjourned till Monday, at PROCEEDINGS OF MONDAY, APRIL 27. The floor of the Senate Cbamber was filled early to day, a large number ot members of the House beiu^ present. Senator Nye appeared in his seat for the first time si;ice his illness. Tbe flrst business, was Sehator Edmunds' motion to admit the official reporters after the argnmenls are concluded and, while the doors are closed for final de liberation. Senator WILUAMS proposed an amendment that no Senator shall speak more tban once, and not to ex ceed .fifteen minutes, daring such delibetatioh. Agreed to. Senator HOWAKD then moved a further amend ment, that each Senator should speak but fifteen nd- nutes upon one question, when the decision was de manded, and it was lost by 19 to 80. The KBpublicans voting in the affirmative were Messrs. Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinphujsen,, Grimes, Howard, Trumbull and Willey. Senator ANTHONY moved to allow each Senjator to speak thirty, instead of fifteen minutes.. This also was lost by a vote of 16 to 34. Eepublicans voting in the affirmative— Messrs. GoE- he't, Fessenden, Fowler aud Grimes. On motion of Senator MOETON, the'further consi- 214 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. derat.i(m of tbe subject was postponed till after the arguments are concluded, Senabor Sumnei-'s motion and his amendments to the rules were also postponed until after the argu ments, aLbis own request. Managr STEVENS then tobk tbe floor at 12-30 F. M., and commtuctd reading his speech, etandipg at thc^ clerk's flesb. Mr. Stevens had not spoken more tban half an hour 'when he wascorblielled to sit down, and soou after had to give up'readiti}j: entirely. • Genera] BUTLER tben stepped up and volunteered to read for him. ./ Mr. STEVENS thanked bim. Mr. BU.TLER proceeded in a clear, loud voice to read the remaludl&r of tbe speech. Ai'^ninent of Manager Stevens. May i't please the court ;— I trust to be able to be brief in my remarks, unlees I ehould tind myaelf leaa master of fhe subject which I propoae fo diacuas than I hope, experience having taught that nothing id so prolix aa ignorance. I fear I raaj' prove thua ignorant, as I had not expected to take part in thie debate until very latelv. lehall di^cueebut a eingle article, the one that was finally adopted upon my earneat solicitation, and \\blch^ if proved, 1 conaidered theu aud atill conaider, aa quite sufficient for the ample conviction of the diatinguished re spondent, aud for- bis removal from ofiice, which ie fhe only legitimate object for wJbich thia impeachment could be inatltuted. During the very brief period which I shall occupy, I de sire to diBCUBB the chargea apainat the respondent iu uo mean spirit of malignity or vitupei;atIon, but to argue them in a manner worthyofthe high tribunal before which I ap pear, and of the exalted position of the accuaed. What ever may be thought of bia character or condition he has been made respectable and his condition haa beeu dignir fled by the action of bis fellow-citizens. Railing accusa tion, therefore, w6uld ill-become thia occaBion, tills tribu nal, or a proper aenae of the poaition of those who diBCuss thia queetiou on the one aide or the othei". To eee the chief eervant of a truatlng community ar raigned before the bar of public justice, charged viith high delinquencies, is Interestins. To behold the Chief Execu tive Magistrate of a powerful people charged with the be trayal of hia truot, and arraigned for high criraea and mis domeanore, ia alwaya a raoat intereeting apectacle. When the chargea againet such public servant accuae him of au attempt to betray the high trust' confided in hira and ueurp the powerof a whole people, that hemay become their ruler. It ia iutenaely intereati|ig to ipillions of men, and should be difcuseed with a calm determination, which nothing cau divert and nothing can reduce to raockery. Such is the condition of thie groat repubUc as looked upou by an astoniBhed and wondering world. The officea of irapeachment iu England and America are very different frora each other, in the uaea made of thera for the punishment of offenaea; andhe will greatly err who undertakes to make out au analoey between them, either in the mode of trial or the final result. In Engbind the highest criraea may be tried before the High Uuurt of Irapeachraent. and the severeet punieh" menta, even to impriaonment, fine and death, mav be in flicted. When our ConBtitution wae framed, all thoae personal Snniamenta were excluded frora the judgment, andthe efendaut was to be dealt with juat ao far as tue public safety required, and no further. Hence, it was made to applv simply to political oftcnaoB— to peraons holdiiLg poli tical posltiona, either by appointment or electiou by the people. Thue it ia apparent that no crirae containing malignant or indictable offenaee, higher than misdei nean ora, was neceaaary either to be alleged or proved. If the respondent waa Bhown to be abualug hia official trust to the injury of the people for whora he was dIriCharginK public duties, and peaervcred iu such abuae to the injury of hie couatitueutB, the true mode bf dealing with him wae to Impeach him for Crimea and iiiisderaeanora (and only the latter ia ueceesHry ), and thus reiuove him frora thp oitice which he was abus ing. Nor does it raake a particle of difference whether such abuse aroae from malignity, from unwarranted ^neeligence or from depravity, so repeated as to make hie continuance in oflice injurious to the people and dangerous to the public welfare. The puuiahment which the law under our Conatitution authorizes to be inflicted fully deiuonatratea this argu ment:— That punishment upon conviction extends only to reraoval from othce, and if the crime or miademeanor charged be one of a deep and wicked dye, the culprit ia allowed to run at large, unless he should be pursued by a new proaecution in the ordinary courts. What .does it matter, then, what the motive ofthe respondent might be in his repeated acts of malfeaeance in officeP Mere mis take in Inteution, if eb persevered in after proper warning aa to bring inlachief upon the community, ie quitb aufficieut to warriiut the removal of the officer from the place where heia working mischief by biacoutlnuance In power. The only quoation to be conaidered ia :— Ib the reapondent violatiug the law? Hia peraeverance in auch a violation, altiiough it shows aperaeverance, ia not absolutely necea* sary to hia conviction, The great object lathe removal from otfice andtthe arreat of tho public injuriea which he ie inflictlne upoirxhoae Viith whose interests ho is intrueted. The aingle charge which I had the houor to suggest, I am expected to maintain. That duty is a light one, easily per formed, aud which, I apprehend, it will be tound i*iip6s. sible for the reapondent to anawer ot evade. Wheu Andrew Johnson took upon himself the duties-of hia high office, he swore to obey the Conatitution and take care that fhe laws be faithfully executed. Tbat, ludeedvis aud hae always been the chief duty of the Preeident ofthe Uuited States, The duties of legielatiou and adjudicating the laws bf hie country fall in no way to his lot. To obfev the commande of the sovereign power of tbe natloii, and to aee that others ehould obey them, was his whole duttr— a duty which he could not escape, and any atterapt to do;so wbuld be in direct violation of hia official oath ; inother words, a misprision of perjury. I accuse hira, in the name of the House of Representa tives, of having perpetrated that foul offense against t^ie lawa and intereets of hie country! On the 2d dayof March, 1867, Congrees passed alaw, over the veto of the President, entitled "Ah act to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices," the first aection of which ia aa follows :— "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa tives ofthe United States of America in Congress Us sembled^ That every person holding anv civil officeito , which he haa been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Sonate, and every j)erBon who may he^e- affer be appoiufed to auy such ofnce and shall beconie duly qualified to act therein, is and ahallbe eutitled to hold such office until a aucceeeor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified, except as herfein otherwise provided: Provided, That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaater-General. ^nd tbe Attorney- General, Bhall hold their offices rjespeetively tor anddur- ing the tenn of the Preaident by whom they raay have been appoiuted, andfor one month thereafter, eubject to reinoval by and, with the advice and conBont. of the Senate."' Tho eecond eection providea that when the Senate ia not iu eeaeion, if the Preeident ahall deem the officer guilty of acta which reguire hia removal or euepenaion, hemay be suapended until the uext meeting of the Senate; andthat witnin twenty daya after the meeting of the Senate the reasona lor such suapeneion ahall be reported to that body; and, if the Seuate ahall deem auch reasona auflicicut for such suBpeuBion or removal, the officer ahall be considered reraoved from hia office ; but if the Seuate shall not diktn the reapona sufficient for euch suapeuBion or removal, the oflicer shall forthwith reaurao the functions of hia onice, and the person appoiuted in hia place shall ceaae to difi- charge euch dutiee. On the 12th day of August, 1867, the Senate then not beiug In eeasion. the Preeident euapended Edwin M. Stan ton, Becretary of theDcpartraeni. of War, and appointed U. S., Grant, General, Secretary of War adinterim. On tbe 12th day of December, 1867, the Senate being then In seasion, he reported, according to the requireraentaof the act, the causee of euch auepeneion td the Senate, which duly took the same into contideration. Before the Senate bad concluded its examination of the queation of the aulfi- clency ofsuch reasone, he attempted to enter into arraugo- ments by which he inight obstruct the due execution of the law, and thus prevent Edwin M. Stanton frora forth with reauming the functions of his oflice as Secretary of War, according to tho provisiona of the act, evCn Sf the Senate ahould.decide Iu hia favor. ¦ Aud in turtherance of said attempt, on the 2lBt day of Februaiy, 18t8, he appointed one .Lorenzo Thomae, by letter oi a.uthpritiy or commiaaion. Secretary of Yfar adin terim, without the advice or coneent of the Sonatei'al- though the name was then in eeaeion, and ordered him (the aaid Thomaa) to take poaaeaalon ofthe Department of "War and the public property appertaining thereto, aud to dia- charge the dutiea tnereof. ^ We charge that, In defiance of frequent warnings, hehas Bince repeatedly attempted to carry thoee orders Into ex ecution, and to prevent Edvi'in M- Stantoii frora executing the laws appertaining to the Department fflE*,War, and from diachargiug the duties of the oflice. The very able gentleraan who argued this case f6rtbo reapondent has contended that Mr. Stanton's caae ia ndt withiu the provisions ofthe act " regulating the tenure of certain civil oflicea," and that therefore the President cannot be convicted of violating that act. Hia argument in demonatratiug that poaition waa not, I think, quite equal to his sagacity in discovering where the great strength of the proaecution was lodged. He contended tbat the proviso which embraced lhe Secrbtaiy of War did not include Mr. Stanton, becausehe waa not appointedby the Preeident m vi bote terra the acts charged aa misde meanore were perpetrated: and'Iu order to show that, he contended that the terin of oflice mentioned during Avhich he waa entitled to hold meant the tirae di;ring which the Preaident who appointed hira actually djd hold,, ^i hether dead or ahve : that Mr. Lincoln, who appointed Mr. Stanton, and under whoae coramibsion he was holding indeobitely. bemgdead. hia (erm of oflice referred to hadexpired, and that Mr. Johnson was not holding during a ^part'of that term. Ihat depends upon the Conatitutiou, and the laws made under it. By the Constitutiou, tlie whole tune fromthe adoption of tbo eoverninent was intended to be divided into equal PrcBidentlal periods, aud the word term'^ was teclifaically ueed todeaignate thetime of each. 1 he fivBt BBctlon of the eecond article of the Constitution provides "that the executive power Bhall be vested iua Preeident of the UniU d States of America. He ehall hQld hiH omce during the term of four years, and together, "0 ith the Vice President,, chosen for the aarae terrn^ be elected %a followfi," &c. Then' it provides that " iu case of IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 215 removal from office, or of his death, resignation, or in ability to diechurge the duties of eaid office, the aame shall devolve ou the Vice Preaident, and Congresa may bylaw provide for the caae of removal, death, reaipnation, or in ability both of the Preeident and Vice President, designa ting v\ hat oflicer shall then act ae Prefiident, and such otficer ahall theu act accordingly until the diaabillty is removed or a Preeident ehall be elected." The learned couurel contends that the Vice President, who accidentally accedes to the dutiea of President, is Bcrving ont a new Presidential terra of hia own, and that, unleaa Mr. Stantou waa appointed by hira, he ie not within the proviBions of the act. It liappened that Mr. Stanton was unpointed by Mr. Lincoln iu 1862 for an in definite period of time, and waa etill serving as his ap pointee, by an^ with the advice and coneent of the Senate. Mr. Johneon never appointed him, and, unleas he held a valid conunisalon by virtue of Mr. LIncoln'a appointment, he waa acting lor three yeara, duriug which time he ex pended billiuns of money and raiaed huudredn of thou- saudaofmen. without any coinmipalon at all. To permit thia to be doue wiibout auy valid conimiei-iou world have been a mitderaeanor iu itaelf. Butif he held a valid com missiou, whoae commiaaion was it? Not Andiew John son's. Then iu whose term waa he serving, foi he muat have been in aoraebody'a term? Even if it was In John son's term, he w ould hold for four years unlees sooner re moved, for there ie no term epoken of in the Constitution of a ehorter period foi'\a Preaidential term than four years. But it makea uo ditterence in the uperation of the law whether he waa holding in Lincoln's or Johneon's terra. Was it not iu Mr. Lincoln's term? Lincolu had been elected and re-elected, the second terra to commence in 1865, and the Constitution expreably declared that that term should be four yeara. By virtue of hia previous commiasion and the uniform custom of the couutry, Mr. Stanton continued to hold during tho terra of Mr. Lincoln, unlees eooner removed. ' Now, does any one pretend that from the 4th of March, 1865, a new Presidential term did not coramence ? For it wUlbe Been upon cloae examination thatthe word "terrn" atone raarke the time of thePrealdeutial existence, ao tbat it may divide the different perioda of oflice by a well-recoe- nizCd rule. Instead of saying that the Vice Preaidentahall become Preaident upon hia death, the Cuns-titutlon aaya:— **In caae of the reraoval of the Preaident irom office, or of his death, reaignstlon, or Inability to diacharge the 3?ouiers and duties of the said office, the eame shall devolve onthe Vice Preaident." What ia to devolve on, the Vice President? Not the Presidential commiaaion, held by his predeceaaor, but the "duties" which were incumbent on nim. If ha were to take Mr. Lincoln's terra he would serve fcur yeara, for tuiiu ia the onlv limitatiou to that office defined in the Couatitution, as I have eaid before. But th. learned counsel haa contended that the word "term." of the Presidential office meane the death of the President. Then It would have been better expreaaed by eaying , that the Preeident ehall hold hie office during the term be tween twoaeaaaelnationa, and then the assaaalnation ofthe Preaideut would u:ark the period of the operation of tbia law. If, tben,Mr. Johnson waa serving out one of Mr. Lincoln^a . terms, there sueuit to be no argument agaiust including Mr. Stauton \\-ithiu tue meaning ofthe law. He waB eo Included ' by tbe Preaideut in his notice of removal, m hia reaaons therefoie given to the Senate ,and Iu hia notification to the Becretary of the Treasury ; and it ia too laie when he Is caught violating the very law under which he proleaees to act, to turn round aud deny that that law'aflecta the case. The gentleman treats lightly the queetlon of eatoppel; and yet reully notliing ia raore powerful, for it ia an arguraent by the parfcy hiuisidf against hiraaelf, and althougl" not pleadable m the taine way, is just as potential in a caee in 'pais as when pleaded in record. ' j .^ . But there iB a still more conclUBive anawer. The first section provides that every person holding civil office who has been appointed with the advice and coneent of the Senate, and everv pereon that hereafter ehall be appointed to any auch oflice, shall be entitled to hold euch oflice until asucceeeor shall have been In like manner appointed and duly qualified, except aB herein otherwite provided, then comes the proviso w'hich the defendant's couueel aay does noterabiaco' Mr, Stanton, becauee he waa not appointed by the Preaideut in whoee terra hewas removed. Jf he was not embraced in the provieo, then 4ie waa now here specially provided for, and waa consequently embraced in the firfat clauee ot the first eection, w hich declares that everv person holding any civil office not otherwiae pro vided for ctmea vi itliin the provision of fhis act. The respondent, in violation of tbie law, appointed Generarinomaetooffice, whereby, according to, the ex- prcfcB terms of the act, he was guilty of a high miedcr moanor But whatever may have been his views with regard to the Tenure of Oflice act, he kn.ew it waa a law, and HO recdvded upon the statutes. I disclaim all ncces- and Borccdidedupon the statutes. - ,-- sity in a trial of impeachment, to prove, the wicked or unlawful intention of, the respondent, and it is unwice ever to aver It. ,, , . ,. ^ i ^t.' In irapeachraents more than in indictments, the averring of the fact charged carries' with it all that it is neceaaary to say about iutent. In indictmenta you charge that the de fendant, "instigated by the devil," aud ko on; and ypu might aa well call on the prosecution to prove the pre sence, ehape and color of bis maje,^ty, aa_ to call upon the managera in irapeachment to provem tention: _. I go further tban some, and contend that no corrupt or wicktd motive need inttigate the acts fur which luipeachmcut is brought. It ia enough that they were oflicial violations of law. lhe counsel baa placed great stress upon the necessity of prov ing that they were wilfully done. If by that he meana that they were voluntarily done, I agree wiih him. A mere accidental treepaaa would not be aufliclent to convict. But that which is voluntarily done is wilfuUly done, accord ing to every houeat definition ; aud whatever malfeasance ia williuglyperpetrated by an office-holder ia a miade meanor iu oflicu, whatever he may allece waa hia intention. .'lhe Preaident juatifies hiraself by aaBertingthatall pre vious PrcFidenta had exerciaed the eame right of reraoving othccra, for cause to be judgedof by the President alone. Had there been no law to prohibit it w hen Mr. Stanton was removed, the ca^ea would have been paralU-l, and the one might be adduced as an arguraent iu favor ofthe other. But, since the action of any of the Preaidentfl to which he releia, a law had been passed by Congresa, after a atubbom controveray vi ith the Executive, denying that right and prohibiting it in future, and irapoeing a severe penalty upou auy executive officer who ahould exerciee it, Aud that, too, after the President had hiinsielf made issue on ita conatitutlonallty and been defeated. No pretext, therefore, any longer exiated that euch right was vested in the Preeident by virtue of his office. Hence the attempt to shield hiraaelf under "such practice ia a most lame evaaion of the queation at ipaue. Did he "take care that thie law should oe faithfully" executed? He anewera that acts, that would have violated the law had it existed, were prac ticed by bia predeceaaoia. How does that juatify hia own malfeueance? The President aaya that he removed Mr. Stanton simply to teat the coneti tutionality of the Tenure of Office law oy a judicial deciti^n. He haa already aeeu it tested aud de cided by the votes, twice given, of two-thirda of the Sena tora and of the Bouse of Kepreeentativca, It atood as a law upon the statute booka. 5lo caee had arieen under that law, oria referred to by the Preeident, which required any judicial interposition. If there had been, or ehould be, the courta were open to any one who felt aggrieved by the ac tion of Mr. Stanton, But Instead of iniorciug that law, he takea advantage of the name and the funde of the United Statee to reaiBt it, and to induce othere to rceiet it. Inatead of atterapting, aa tbe Executive of the United Statea, to eee that that law wae faithfully executed, he took great paina and perpetrated the acta alleged iu thia article, not only to reeist it hiraaelf, but to acduce othere to do the aame. He sought to induce the General-in-Chief of the Array to aid him iu au open avowed obetruction of the law, a tit stood unrepealed upon the statute book. He could find no one to unite with hira in perpetrating auch au act, until he sunk down upou the unfortunate Individual bearing the title of Adjutant-General of the army. Is thie taking caro ' that tho laws shall be faithfully executed? I» this attempt ing to carry thera Into effect, by upholding their validity, according to hia oath? Onthe other hand, waa it not a high iind bold attempt to obstruct the lawa and take care that thev ehduld not be executed? He muat not excuee hlraeelf "by aaving that be had doubts of its coustitu- .tiouality aud wiahed to teat it. What right had he to be hunting up excuaee for othera, as well aa himeelf, to violate thie law ? Ie not thia confeaeiou a raiadenieanor in iteelf? The President aaaerta that he did not remove Mr. Stan tou under the Tenure of Office law. This ia a direct con tradiction of hia own letter to the Secretary of the Trea aury, in which, as he wae bound by law. he communicated to that of&cer the fact of the removal. This portion of tho anawer raayi therefore, be conaiddrcd as diapoacd ot bv the non-exietence of the fact, as well as by his subsequent re port fo tho Senate. The followiug ia the letter just alluded to, dated Auguat 14, 1867 :— . "Sir:— In corapliance with the requirements of the act entitled "An act to regulate the tenure of certain civil officee," you are hereby notified that, on the 10th inefant, the Hon. Edwin M.Stanton was suspended from hia oifice aa Secretary of War, and Gendr^l U.,S. Grant authbrized and empowered to act aa Secretary^ oa interim, "Hon. Secretarv of the 1'reaeury." Wretched man! a direct contradiction of his aolemn an swer! How nepeaaary that a raau should have a good con science or a good uieitiory! Both vvould uot be out of place. How lovely to contemplate what wae bo aesiduously incul cated by a celebrated Pagan Into the raind of hia son: "Virtue Ib truth, and truth ia virtue." And etill more, vir tue of every kind charrae ua, yet that virtue ia efrongeat which ie effected by juetiee and generofcity. Good deeds will never be done, wise acts will uever be executed, ex cept by tbe virtuoua and the con eeieu tiou e. Miiy the people of this Eepublic reraeraber thia good- old doctrine when thoy next meet to select their rulere, and may thoy eelect only the brave and the vh'tuouaj Haa it been proved, as charged iu thia article, that An drew Johnson in vacation suepeuded from oflice Edwin M. Stanton, who had been duly appoiuted and waa then exe cuting the duties of Secretary of the Department of War, without the advice and conaent of the Senate; did he re port the reaaona for euch Bupension to, the Senate within twenty daya from the meeting ofthe Senate; and djd tbe Senate proceed to conaider the aufficiency of auch reaeoue? Did the Senate declare such reaeona ineuflicient, whereby the Baid Edwin M. Stanton became authorized to forth with resume and exercise the functions of Secretaryof War, and diaplace the Secretary adinterim, whoae duties were tlien to ceaee and terminate; did the said Andrew Johnson, iu hia official character of Preaident of the United ' States, attempt to obstruct tho returu of the said Edwin M. Stanton and hia resumption forthwith of tbe functions 'of his office aa Secretary of the Department of War;and bas he continued to attempt :to, prevent the diacharge of the dutiea of aaid oRica by aajd Edwin M. Stanton,. Secre- ' tary of War, notwithatauding the Senate decided in his 21,6 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. favor? If he has, then the acta iu violation of law, charged! in this artlc-lo. arcf ull ahd complete. The proof Ilea in a very narrow cdmpaaa, and dependa upon tlic credibility of one or two witm-asee, who, upon' thia point, corroborate each other's evidence. Audrew Johnson, iu hia letter of the Slst of January, 1868, not only declared that euch waa hia intention, but reproaclied U. S. Grant, General, in tlie follow ipg lau^ guage :— "You had found in our first conference 'that the Preei dent wae desiroue of keeping Mr. Stanton out of office whether sustained in the suspension or not.^ You knew What reaaone had induced the Preeidcnt.to aek Irora you a Sromiae ; you aleo knew, that in caee your viewta of duty id not accord \^ ith liia own convlctlona it was his purpope to fill your place by another appointment. ..Even ignoring tbe exietence of a poaitive under:'tandiug betw^een ua, thepe conclusions were j^lainly deducible frbm various converaa- fdone. It is -certain, however, thac even under these cir cumstances »ou did not offer to returu the place tn my poa- seseion, but,^ according to your owu stateraent, placid yourself in a position where, could I have anticipated your action, I w ould have been compelled to ask of you, as I waa compelled to ask of your predeceeaor in the War De partment, a letter of reeignation, or elte to rcsont, to tJe more dieagrecable expedient of suspending you by a suc- .-Hethus distincfly alleges that the General hada full knowledge that such w ae hie : deliberate intention. Hard worda and ijijiirioiie epithcte can do nothing to corrobo rate or to injure the character of a witneaa ; hut if Andrew Johnaon be not wholly deetitute f^f truth aud a shameleaa falsifier, then tliis article aud all its charges are clearly made out by hia own evidence. Whatever the respondent may say of the replv of U. S. Grant, General, only goes to confirm the fact of the Presi dent's lawless atterapt to obstruct the execution of the act specified in the artice. If Geueral Grant's recollection of hia conversation with me President i» correct, then it goes aflirmatively to prove the eame fact stated by the Preaident, although it ahowa that the President peraevered lu hia couree of determined pbatruction of the law, while the Geueral refused to aid in itBconeuramation. No diflerenccs aa to the 'main fact of the attempt to violate and prevent the execution of fhe rlaw exiete iu either etatement ; both compel the conviction ofthe respondent, (mleHB he ehoyld eecape through other means than the facts proving the article. He cannot hope to escape by asking thia High Court to declare, the "Uw for regulating the tenure of certain civil oflicea" unconsti tutional and void; for it so happens, to the hopeless mie- fortune of the respondent, that almoat every member of this high tribunal has more than once— twice, perhaps I three tiiuee— declared, upon hia official oath, that law con stitutional and valid. The unhappy mau Iain thia condi tion ;— He hae declared hlraeelf determined to obstruct that act; he haa, by two several letters of authority, ordered Lorenzo Thomas to violate that law ; and he has iesued commiaeions during the se^iBion of the Senate, without the *°iX**'S„^^^ consent of the Senate, in violation of law, to said Thomae. He must, therefore, either denv hia own solemn declarations and faltify the teetknony of General Grant and Lorenzo Thomaa, or expect that verdict, w hi ise leaet puniehraent ie removal from office. .But thePresident denlee iu hia ane wer to the first and the eleventh articlee (which he intends ae a joint answer to the two charges) that he had attempted to contrive means to prevent the due execution of the law regulatmc tenure of certain civfl offices, or had violated his oath *' to Jake care that the laws ,be faithfully executed." Yet, While lie deniea such attempt to defeat the execution of the laws, m his letter of the Slat of January, 1868, ho aeeerta and reproachea Geueral Grant by the aeaertlon, that the General knew that hia object waa to prevent Edwin M. Btanton from forthwith reauming the functions of hie office. notwithetanding that the Seuate raight decide in hie favor' aud the President and U. S. Grant, General, In their aucrv correspondence ofthe date heretofore referred to, made an issue of veracity-the Preeident aEBcrting that tlie General nad promised to aid hira m defeating (he execution of the laws by preventing the immediate reaumption ofthe func- tionaof Secretary of War by Edwin M. Stantion, andthat theGeneral violated hie promise; and U.S.Grant, Gen eral, denying ever having tindlly raade euch promiae, although he agrees with the Preeident that theHPreeldeu^ did attempt to ihduce him to make euch promiee and to enter into such an arrangement. ' Now, which of. theae gentlemen may have lost hie me mory, and found in heu of the truth a vielon which iesucs teiJ^^K*""^ Gate-though who_can heaitate to chooee between the worda of a gallant soldier and thepettifogginl of a pohtical tnckater-ia wholly iraraaterial. eo far (S the charge aeainfit tho Preaident is concerned. That charge la. that the Preaident did attempt to prevent the due execu- tiea? He bad acted un- w*«rVfh'^'«h°'f i^"^^ ^^*^^'' '-^ authority, both tor the long and the short term, to eeverai persons under it, and it rwould hardly lie 'in hie juoufb after^that to deny its va lidity, unleas he confi^aeed himself guilty of law-breaking by iat-ulug euch corainie^eiDns. ' Let ue here look at Andrew, Johnaon accepting the oath "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." On the 2d of March, 1861,110 returned to the Senate the Tenure of Oflice bill, where , it originated and had paaaed "by a majority of more than . two-thii,da. wltbreaaona elaborately given v?hy it should not paBa,finally; Aniong theee was the allegstlon of its uncdnetitutlon ality. H passed by a. vote of 36 yeae to 11 nays. In the. Bouse of liepresentativea it pasFcd hy-moFctJjan.atwo-thirdBina- jbnty J and when the vote was announced , the Spealcer, as waa lus cuetom, proclaimed the vote, and deci«rcd, inthe hingnage of the Conatitutiou, "that tw'o-tlilrde of each . Houfe having voted for it, notwithatanding the objeetiona , of thePreaident. it haa become a law." "^ ,1 ara siippobing that Andrew Johnaon was at thia mo- i^ent waiting to take the. oath of oflice as Prepident bf the United States, "that he would obey the Conatitution, and take care that the laws be faithfully, eisccitted." Having been B« oru on the Holy Evangels to obey the Conetitu tion, and being about to depart, ho turned to the person adniiuietering the oath, and aays, "Stop: I have a further oath. ' I do solemnly awear that I, willnot allowtliiB.aiJt entitled 'An act regulating the tenure of certaiti civil oflicea,' just paeeed by Congreea ovei the Preeidential veto, to be executed; butz will prevent its execution by virtue of my own constitutional power. How shocked Congreee woiild have been. What would the country have eaid to a ec'ene egual'^d only by fhe un paralleled action of fhis samq oflicial, y hen pworn into oflice on that fatal fif th day of March, which .inadcmm the aucceeeor of Abraham^incoln! Certainly i^e would nb^ have bunn pennitted to be^ inaugurated aa Vice Prei dent pr Pr^'C'dfut, Yet such fn effect, hus been .hia con duct, if not iiuder oath, at least with lesaexcuae, since the iatal day which Inflicted hira . upon the people of the United Btates. Can the Preeident hope to escape if the fact of hia violatiug the law be proved or confessed by hira, aa hae been done? Can he expect a eufficient number of hie tryere to pronounce that law unconstitutional and void— fhope eame tryera having passed upon ita validity upon several occaaiona? The act was brigiuaHv paaaed by a vote of 29 yeas to 9 nays. Those who voted in tho It- firraative were :— Meaars, Anthony, Brown, Catttfl. Ohftnd- It-r, (lonneee, Cragin, Edmunde, Fogg, Foster. 'Frt'lidghny. >«en. '.rrimee, Harrif, Henderaon. Howard, Howe, Latie, MorgJiii, Morrill, Poland, Rarasey, Sherman,' Sprague, Sumner; Van Winkle. Wade, Willey, Wiliiams. Wilfloal Yatea— 29, Subsequentlv the House of Repreaenfativea paaaed the bill w ith araendraente, whicn the Senate diaagreed to and the bill waa afterward referred to a Committee of Confe"- ence of the two Housea, whoae agreement w as reported to the Senate bv the managers, and was adopted by a vote of 22 yeae to 10 nays. Those, who voted in the affiriiiative were:— Mesers. Antbonv Brown, Chandler. Conneaa, Fogg, Fowler, Henderson. HoHavd, Howe, Lane, Morgan, MSt- nil, Kampey, Eoes, Sherman, Stewart, Sumnef; TrumbnJL VV ade, Williame, Wilaon, and Yatee~-22, ' M' After the vote, upon rernnaideratiou of the bill in tlie henatft, and after all the arguments againet its 'vabdity were spread before tnat body, it paased by a vote Of 88 yeas to 11 naya. It Wae voted fbr by the following Sena- tore:— Meeere. Antliony, Cattell, Chandler, Conneee, Orar gm, Edraunda, Feaaenden, Pogg, Foster, Fowler, Freling- huyeen. Grimes, Harria, Henderson, Howard, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Roaa, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbfifi, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams. Wilsoii,-'wa The Preaident contends tbat by virtue of the Conatitn- tion ne Had tbe right to remove heads of departmenta, and citea alarge number of cases where his predeceeeor had done so. Itmust be obaerved that all those casea wergibe. ft«? *^-l?7-?.^^*l^S^ °^ *^^? Tenure of Office act, Marcb^S, i»b7. Will the reepondent say how the having doriean act when there waa no law to forbid It juatifies flie repeti- ^^"v-i^*' ^^^ **^*^ ^^^^ » ^^^ haa been paaaed expreaflly P^°sV^^^l°^*'^*^!?'^^-. It ia not the suapeneion or removal . ot Mr. Stauton that IB complained of, but the manner of auapeneion.^ If the Preaident thought he had gcod reaeona for Buspeudmg or removing Mr. Stanton, and had done do, T^f}^l^\°^^^^^°^f^9^'^^^^^&te, and then obeyed the decision of theSenate in their tiniiing, there would have Sv^°?°.,''^™P^*™V but instead of thathe euepeudahimin «i^l™ £*5*°*'® °^ *^® Tenure of Office law, and th^n enters mto an arrangement, or attempts to do so, In which rf ?i?^ Vf^* *1S "ad eucceeded, to prevent tbe due execution ih}alit7^^^^r the deciaion of the- Senate. And when ««J^J?^tP.*''^'^*'^^^^"?.*o''n*o**o Mt, Stanton, he makes Lot.^"'*'^^*^?°'^v*'ltyy."^'"eof what be calla lhe power veeted m him by the Constitution: n„™™,*.^- °?-°L'^^ Senete on the message of the President, R?!^?;i^^Hf^^°^* **" ^eaeona for the iuBDeneionofE.M. £^rS« ?'*^T'^'**''^ °^ ^*^' "°der the act entitled au act to regulate- the tenure of certain -civil offices, was as fol- i/^,?™^'?^i2? Sbssion, Senate oit thk UHiTiEDSTATBB, «n^ft(^ffv^';S*^*'^??ertiflcd to the President, i* U^ Mice or which he, with an Impudence and brazen detami* nation to usurp the powers of the Benate, agaia rtmoy^l IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW jOHNSOlt. 211 „^iu M. Stftuton, and a)>pQintcd Lorenzo Thomas Secre try ad intei im in hie etead. The Senate, with calm inan- ueeB, rebuked tho usurper by the following resolution:— In Executive Session, Sewath of the United States, F^ruiiry 21. 1868. Whereas, The Senate has received and considered tbe ©Oirfmu nication Of the Preaident etatiug thathe had re moved Etlwiii M. Stauton, Secretary of War, and had aeelgiiated tWe' Adjutant-General of the Army to act as BooTKtary (if Wjir ad •hiterirn: therefore Re*vlvedybytheSena^(ifthe UnitedStates, Thatunder tboeouBticution And lalvi^B ,df the United States, the Prc- Hdclot has no power f o reVntft'e the Secretary of War, and to dteirignatG any other officer to perform the duties ofthat dKIice ad interim. Vet he conthii^d him in office. And now this ofBspring tfftfBa!>Bin ation tiirUe upon the Senate, who have thua rc- luikedhlifl id aconetittitional inanne)", Arid bide tbem de fiance. How can ho eecape the juet vengeance of the law? Wretched man, staudJng at tjiy. surrounded by a cordon of living mon, each' w ith the axe ofan executioner uplifted forhiajustpuniahmcut. Every Senator now try ing him', ftlcept SUch as had already adopted his policy, .Toted for this aaibe' reaolufiOu, pronouncing his eolemu doom. WUl amy bne ofthem vote for hie acquittal on the .ground of its uncoUBtitutlonalitv? I know that Senators Sould venture to do any neceaaary act if indoi-eed by an onest conscience aUd an e^lIght^ed.pUblic opinio'n ; but neither for the aafce of the Pf-etident nor of any one else, would one of them Buft'er hiiU'sclf to be tortured on the gibbet of everlasting obloquy. Howlongand dark would . be the track of infamy which must miykhis name and fiiat of hie postei'ityl Nothing is therefore more certain San that it requir(» no gift of propheay to predict the fate of this unhappy victim. I have how' discuSeed but onfe of the numerouB articles, dl of which I believe to be fully austained, and few of the eimoflt innumerable offenses charged to this Wayward, ¦nhappy official. I havo alluded ^o two or three others iWhIch icould have wisthed to hive had tirae to present and diacuss, not for the' sake of puniahment, but.ior .the benefit of the country. Onto of these was au article charg-, ¦ing the Preiddent with uaurping the legielative povver of ttie nation, and attempting atill his ueurpatione. vVith regard to usurpation, one single word will explain my meaning. A civil war of gigantic proportlpna, covfer- Ihg aufficieut territoify to constitute many Statea and na tions, broke out, and embraced more than teu millions of men, who formed an Independent governraent, calle_d this Confederate States of America. Thev roae to the dignity (tf an independenn bemgerent, and were ao acknowledeed Dy all civilized nations, aa well aa by ourselvea. After ex- pcnalVe and bloody strife, we conquered thera, and they submitted to our arms. By the lavv of nationa, well un derstood and undlepUtcd, the conquerors in thia unjust war bad the right to deal with the vanquished as to them might aeem good, aubject only to the laws of humanity. They bad a right to confiijcate their property to the extent flf indemnifying themselves and theit citizens; to annex thera to the victorious nation, and paaa just auch lawa for ¦for their government as they niight think proper. Thia doctrine IS aa old ae Grotius, and aa freah as the Dorr re bellion. Neither the Preeideut nor the judiciai*y had any ¦right to interfeVe," to dibtate any terma. Or to aid in re- ¦CDnstruction, furthei* than they were directed hy the sbv- ffl-cign po\\'er'. That sovereign power iu this Republic is tho.CongrepB of the United States. Whoever, besides Cougrcse, undertakes to create, new Btates or to rebuild old onee, and fix the condition of their cltizenahip and union-; usurpe poWera'whIch do not belong to him, and is dangerous or not dangerous, accordih'g to ¦file extent of hia poWer and hia pretcnalona. Andrew fohnson did u^urp the legialative powerof the nation by building new States, and reconstructing, as far as m him lay. this empire. He directed the defunct States to come forth and live bv virtue ofhis breathing into their noBfrlla the breath of life. He directed them what constitutions to form, and fixed tho qualific.itiona of electors ahd of oflice-holdera. He direcUrd them to acnd forward members to each branch of Congreee, and to aid hira in representing the nation. When Congreaa paased a law declaring all ¦Uieso doinea uncouatitutional, and fixed a mode for the ad- nilBfion of thia new territory into the nation, m Pro- daiiued it unconetitutlonal, and advised the people not to submit to it, nor to obey the coThmanda of ConpveaB. I have uot tirae to enumerate the particular acta which con stitute his high-handed uaurpationa. Suffice it to aay, that ne seized all the povf ers of the government within theae Statea, and, had he been permitted, would bave becorae their absolute ruler. This he peraevered in attempting, notwitbatHUding Cougreaa declared more than once allthe pnccvnmenta which be thus created to' be void and of none i^ut'l promieedto be brief, and must abide by tbepro- raiae, although I should liko the judgment of theSenate upon this, to me, eeeming vital phase and real purpose of in hia misdemeanore. To me thia Bceras a aubfimc apec tacle. A uatioU', not free, but as nearly approaching it aa human iuetit*tiona will permit of, conaieting of thirty rail- lituis of people, had fitUen into conflict, i^^hicfa anioug other tvoplearways endsi in anai*chy or despotism, and had laid fluwn ttieir arms, the mutineei-B submitting to the con- auerors. . Tbclaws were about to regain thoir accuetoraed fflSTiy. and aaain to govern the nation by the punwhraent fftreason and tbe reward of virtue. Her old institutions Whve about to be reinstated ao far as they were applicable, accotdlng to the judgment o* the conquerora. Then one of fficir inferor Eervante, instigated by unholy ambition, msi^ to seize a portion of the territory according to the fashion of neighboring anarchies, and to convert aland of feedora •into a land of sliivde. This people BpurnedtuL' traitors, and hav© put the chief of them upon his trial, and deraand judgment upon bin iiiipcoudMct He will bo con deraned, and hia ecntenco luflicted without tunuoil, tu mult, or bloodahed. aud the nation will continue its accus tomed course of freedom and proaperity, without the sheddlpg any further of human blood and with a milder guniahment tban tliC world has accustomed to see, or pe»- Bpa than ought now tobe lufllctod. ¦ Now, eveu if the pretext of the Preaideut were true and not a mer** subterfuge to juatify the chief act of violation with which he standa charged, Btill that would be Bucli an abuse of tbe patronage of the government as would de raand hie impeachment for a high raiademcanor. Let us again for a nioinent exaraine into aome of the circum atancea of that act. Mr. Stanton waa appointed Secretary Of War in 1862, and continued to hold under Mr. Johnaon, which, by ali ueage, ie considered a reappoiuuiont. Was he a faithful officer, or was he removed fur corrupt pur- Eoeee? After the death of Mr. Lincoln, Andrnw Johuaon ad changed hia whole code of politica and policy, and in atead of obeying the will of tbosc who put hira into power, he determined to create a party for himself to carry oiit hia owu arabitious purpoaes. For every honest purpose of the government, and for every honest purpose for which Mr, Stanton wae appointed by Mr. Lincoln, vrbere could a better man he found? None ever organized, an army df a million of inen and provided for ita subsistence and efficient action more rapidly than Mr. Stanton and bis predeceeeor.' It mieht, with more propriety, be aaid of this officer than of the celebrated Fi-enchnian, that he "organized vio- toiy." He raised, and by hie requleitiona dietrlbufedmoce thnn a billion of dollara annually, without ever having been charged or auepected with the raal appropri a tion ofia single dollar; and when victory crowned hin efforts he dfc- banded that immenae arrav aa qiiietly aud peacefullv as if it had been a euramer parade. He would not. I euppos^, ^opt the peraonal views of the President ; and for this he was auapended uutil restored by tho emphatic verdict of rthe S'6pate. Now, If WC a,re right In our narrative of tlM conduct of these particsj and of tbe motivee of the Presi dent, the very effort at removal waa a high haude^ ueur pation aa wefl ae a corrupt miedemeanor, for which, of itsClf, he oUght to be impeached and thrown from tlip place he waeabueing. But he eaya thathe did notroniov^e Mr. Stantdn for the purpoee of defeating tho Tenure of Ojlice law. Then be forgot the truth in nia controveray with the General of the Army. , And because tbe General did uot aid hiiu and ^nalty admit that he had agreed to aid him' in reaistlug that law, he rallied upon him like fi very drab. The counsel for the respondent allege that no removal of Mr. Stanton ever took place, and that, thcrofore, the sixth section of the act was not violated. Tlioy admit thiit there wae an order of removal ai;d a recieion of his com- niisBlon; but as he did not obey it, sny it was no reraoval. That suegeats the old eaying, that it, uaed to be thought that "when the brains wero out the jiian was dead." That idea is proved by leamed couneel to bc abeolutely falla cious. The br^Iu of Mr. Stanton's cominlealou was feikcji out by the order of removal— the roclaion of hie coinniis- aiou— andhis head waa abaolutely cut off by that gallant Soldiei'. General Thoraaa, the night after the luaaqucrade. And yet, according to the learned and delicate counai 1, until the mortal Tcmains, everything which could putrify waa ghoVeled out and hauled info the rauck-yard, thoi%, wae no removal. But it is said that thie took place merely as an expeiimCnt to make a judicial caae. ^ow, suppose there is anybody who, with the facte before him, can b^- -lieve that thie was uot an afterthought, let us see if that palliates the offense. The Preeideiit ie sworn to take care that the lawa be faithfully executed. In what pal-tof tho Conetitution op lawe does he find it to be hia dutv to eeftrcb out for defec tive lawB that stand recorded upon the atatutea, iu order that he raay advise their infraction ? Who waa aggrieved by the Tenure of Office hill that he waa authorzed to nad the name and the funde of tho government to jfelievc? Willhebeeogoodaato tellus "by ^yhat authority he be came the obatructtir of au unrepealed law inatead of ita executor, eapecially a law whoae constitutionality he had twlceteated? lf_thercwcrc nothing eUc than ^his own atatement, he dceervce the contempt of the American peo ple, and the puniiehmeut of ita higbcat tribunal. If he were not willing to execute the laws pasaed by the Amer^ can Congreee, and unrepealed, let hlni resign the office which wae thrown upon nim by a homble convulsion, and retire to his village obscurity. Let hira not be eo swol len by pride aud arrogance, which aprang from the deep miafortune of his couutry, as to atterapt an entire rovolu-* tion of its Internal macninery, and the disgrace of the trusted servants of his lamented predecessor. ThC gentleman haa epoken of the great purity of tbe President in hia trauBactiou with Mr. Black and others. I admit that ia a fail* aubject from ^^bicb to infer general Eurity of conduct, and Iwill examine it alittle. It was eld by Socrat^ and Plato to be among tbe most atrocious of offeneeB to corrupt the youth, because that tended to overthrow the eolid fonns of government, and build up an- archy and despotiam In thar place. ,Ix it were so in an oligarchy, how much raore would it be so iu a govemraent whero the lawe conti-ol, and where the laws 8h.ould be pure, if that eovernment is expected to bd conducted with purity aud to survive the temporary shocks of ty- rantsf If It is proved or knovra that Andrew Jobnaon at tempted at any time, to corrupt tiie loyal voters c€ this 16 ais IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNS'ON. I'nited States, eo ae to change theiu from thier own true oiiuiouo. to thoap which he hiraaelf had adoplid, thei;e a- f few who will pretend that be ivaa uit guiltv of a high 'rindemcanor. We nei;d liardily call wltneet'es to prove a fict whii-h everybody knoi^e nnd nobody i\ ill deny. Doee the sun Hhiue tit mid-day 7 It would hardly be thought necesaary to answer that quet-tion by proof, lind yet thore i-" iupt as luiich ucce!'>ify forit. ai! to j>rovc that Andrew ¦ Jnhn^ou had f hanpcd hie m )iole princjples and policv aim "euf^'red iuto'thcmOFtduiigcrouB ind da.mafiiag eontnieta V 1th nepirant-'i for office, to I'ndHce thoiu to aid hiiu in changing the principlea of those who sought oflice. 'Whu dons not bdicv'6, that the p.itronaso was put into the hnnda of Doolittle, Cowan and that tribe of men, for diatrlbutloni on precisely such terras and conditions as ttioy chopc'to make? Show mea more, shameleaa perver sion of patronage Ih any country or ih any govornment, however corrupt and despotic, andl ^lijl isidrait that An drew Johnfon IB aepure as the icicles that hunc on Diana'a Temple. Before that. Johnaon appeared ,with Abraham Lincoln in the Senate Chanibpr^^ to tal^j-' tJie oath of office, and they took It at the aarae jtimC, in-the eame manner., -With aome email variation In file manner of tbe Vice Preei dent; but hia friende hoped that such vansitione had not olJliternted or obacurcd hisconaciouenofa of the oath he had taken, and that when ho camo to reficrt, ho would abide by all he had sworn to obaerve, notwithstanding bia then oondition. . .'-,,- ¦ Unfortunately the President wae taken away, and left a 'temptation for the higher aFpirationa ofj Mr, Johnsou. In- -stead of being content with the poaition thjj people had given hira, and which, hp said, he gladly accepted, he 'sought to become thereafter* as well ae then, the chief of the nation. Thia he knew could only be done bv changing principlea and creating.a new party to Buataiu him. After some little hesitancy ne resolved upon that course, and eerpetrated a betrayal of the party that had elected im and the prlnciulQs ho profeseed. Worse than the be- ti!e'''niH they were left, bf courae, with uo alternative buttpiabd^ cate, or rule aud'vlndicate the right to make lawau^Bee that it was obeyed. , *¦ * Thia ImperiquB ncceasity tbe people, in whose narao tney speak, a branch of that race whose quick aenalbillty ti) pnblic danger has ever kept a sleeping vigil over ita llbe^ ties, have yielded at last i^ith a reluctance whieh nothiitg but the weariness of civil strife, the natural longine for repose, the anprehcuBlve sense that it ia better, perhaps, "to bear the IUb we have than fly to others Jhat we know not of." The reflection that the administration muat have an end. and above all, perhaps, the deliiaive hope that its law-defying head hiraaelf would ultiraately submit toA neceeaity vi-hich waa ae atrong aa fate could have brougM aboutor wouldhave, perhapa, exerciaed. He haa miaaiy derstood their reason, as lua couneel show they do now iniatake their temper and preeume upon their forbearance. Ho has forgotten that there waaa pcint at which thfi coi> filct inuet end Iu tho shock of two opposing forcea and tbs overthrow of one or other ofthe antagoniatic clementB, It was neceaeary, perhaps, in the order of Providence, that h^ should reach that point by striking such a blovr at the public libertiea as ahbuld awaken , the 'People as with an earthquake shock to tho consciouaneaa . that tbe toleration of uBuip.ating crime brings, no aecuiity ton* tiOna. To ahow, however, how much they havo homo and forborne, perhapa forgiven for the sakeof peace, and hoff much they now paaa over for the sake of a speedy aolution of the impending trouble, which haa impeded the onTvard ,and upward raovement of this great government, aod epread couf neiou and disorder throughout many of ita d<^ partmente, and what, moreover, ia the truo import and signification of the acte for which the Preaident Ib nov arraigned, I must be allowed.with your Indulfzence, to tako for a inoment the key whicii ia required to unlock the mya- terieeaf the poeition. Tho man wno aupposed that there ib but affu(*Btion of removal of an obnoxious ofificer, ft nicrfl pVivate quarrel between two bcligercnta at either end ol the avenue, whevein it ia no great uational coneeqiieucfl The Houai.e of Repreaeu tatives espouses no mau'd quarrtla however considerable he may be. It bas but, singled oim from many others of equal weight, the facta here chnrgfd as facta bothiu the pa^it, and recent occurrcncee, of prea* nptoriefy. The laeue here ie between twomigbtier ant :go- luijta, one the Chief Executive Magiatrate of this natioDi and the other the people of the Umted States, for whom the Stcrctary of War now boldp almost tbe 'Only atrong po sition of which tbey havo not been dUposeeBaed. It is but a rene"-nl on _ American soil 'of fno old battt§ between tho roval prerogative and tho' privilcgoa of the criminwb which \f'ae closed iu'EnglandMwJth the rcign oj the Stuartpi— aatrugplaforthe maatoily .jsetwcCn a tompo- rary executive andthe legislative power df A free State over the mtst momentous queation that has ever ChaV lenged the attention of, tho people. The counwl f"r the President leUectine of coiusa the vi&wB of their employe. ^ ould have you bolitive th*c the reraoval of a departmental lU'ad i-1 an Ktinir of State too aiuall to bo wortliy rtf encff faU avenger as tbio. V^o propoae stauding ulouur stripptid 0 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 219 ^ the attendant clrcnmBtancea tbat explain the act, aud Bhow the dead& ani'hiua by which it ia inspired. It is mit improbable that there are aome who raight have Ik^u induced to think with thera, that a remedy eo ex treme as thia was more than adequate. It ie oulv under the light npon the particuUr isaue by antecedent facta which have passed into history that the giant pspportions "qi thia oontroveisy can be fully eeen, and they are not niade sufficiently apparent now by the defiant tone of tho jPrei^ideut, and (3ie formidable pretension set up by him in Ida thoughtfi Ily conaidered and painfully eltborate plea. I'he not irrelevant question, "Who ia Andrew Johnflon?" h'aa been asked by one of hia counael, aa it haa ofteu been by himeelf, and answered in the same way by hunself by ehowing who he wae and what ho had doue, before the peo- Se of the loyal States so; generouely iutruatt-d him with at contingent power, i^hich was mado absollite only for e advantage of dcfeafdd uud discomfitt-ed treason bv the murderous piftol of an aeeasaln. > »,. 1 wIH not atop now to inquire as to scenes enacted on tliis floor, and eloquently rehearsed by thecounsel forthe President, with tvw) pictures of ao opposite a character be fore uie, or even to inquire whether hia rosiatnnce totbe hegira of the Southern Senators was not merely a qu^ liun, himself being the ivitnosa as totbe wiadom of auch &atep at that particular time. The opportunity occure juat here to auawerlt aa it is put, by showing who Andrew Johnson ia, and what he haa been eince tbe hour of that iraprovident and unrcHectinc gitt, eh^'U (jtiantum mutatus abille. Alael How changed! bow fallen frora that high estate thnt won for him the K.ipport of a too confiding people. WouM that it could avo heen said of hira. aa of Lucifer, whoae spirit ^vas hurled in hidcoua ruin and combustion down from hea- veu^B cryetal brtttleiiientt?, that even in hi* fill he had uot ^et lost all hia original brightness, nor appeared less than dn archangel ruined. The master key to the whole history of bis adrainiatra- -tfpn, which hae involved not a riiere harraless difference of opinion, as oue of hia counbersceraa to think, where gentle men raight afford to disagree without a. quarrel, but one Jpnganp unseemly atniggle by the executive jvgainst the cgialative power, la to he foand in the fact of an early and reraiatent purpose of forcing the Rebel States Intp tho jaion by means ofhis executive authority. In the interest Qf the men .\vbo had lifted tliei^ parricidal hand againat it ^ terms dictated by himself, aud in defiance ofthe will gf nie loyal penplo of the United States, aa declared through their reproaentatiyeB. , Ta accoinpliah Ithis object how much has he not done and howjnuch haa a lone-euiTeiing people not paeeed over, . withoutpunii^hment and almoat without rebuke. Let hie tory -rkt your p'u lie recordB, %vhlch are the' only authen- ^e matenals of history— anewei", and, they will "a.v that, for Jhie, instead of convening the Congress in the most 2^iouu^ni,ous crisis of the State, ho has lesucd his royal . proclamation for the aa-icrabling of conventiona and the $n.'Ction of State goverunvent^, preacribing the quiilifica- jtiou of the votcFs and settling tne conditione of theii" ad- ,,Uilaeion into tho Union, For this, he liad created offices ynknowu to fhelayy, and filled them with men notorioualv 7ieil.TuUificd by law, at aalarlea fixed by hia owji lucre will, j'or Qiis he had paid theae officer^ iu conteipptuouB diave- eard of Ia*.v, aud paid them, too, out of the contlUjgcnt - fund of the dcDarimeuts of thp government For this he had supplied the expenses of hia new eoverumeuts by turning over to them the epoils of tho dead Confederacy, and authorizing hia eati'apa to levy taxes from the con- .QUerod people. Por thie, lie had paaacd away unnumbered milliona of the priibllc property to Rmel railroad companies uithont cou- BJderationj or sold it to them, in clear violation of law, on long credita, at a valuation of hia own, jind without any .flurcty whatever. For thip, he hud stripped the Bureau of Fi'eedmen aud Ref ligeee'of its luunificunt endowment, by taking from It" the land appropriated hv Congreas to the legal wards of tha republic, and restoring to fhe Rebels 'their juBtly-ftTrfelted CRtates, after tha same had been ¦ TeatedT by law in the Govemment cf tbo United Statea. For this he had invaded,, witha ruthleaa hand, the very nenetraHa of tho Treaeurv, and plundered ita eentinela for the benefit of favored Uebela, by ordering tho restoration bf the procoeda of aalea of captured and abandoned pro- 8 erty, " hich had been placed In Ita custody by law. For !iip, he bad grossly abused the pardoning ^ower conferred on him by the Constitution, iu roleafing the most active and formidable of the loadors of the Kebclliou, with a view to theii* Fervice in the furtherance of Jiis policy, and even delegated that power for the same objects to raeu who w ero indebted to its exerciae for their own eecape from punishnicnt, {''oi' thi-s he had obstructod'tbe couree of public justice nor only bj- refusing to enforce Uie laM-a enacted foi the eUppnjfijdon of the rebellion and the puuiahment of trea- Bon, but by going into the courts and turning the greatest of the public malefaqtore loose, and surrendering All con- ti'ol over thera by the restoration to them of their estates. Fnrthi'she hadT abused tlic appointing power by thero- inov.al oh system of raeritoriouB public officers for no oMicr reason thon becauee they would not asalBt him In Iii-t ritterapt to overthrow the ConBtitution and usurp the egi-lative power of the governinent. For thia, he had in vaded the rightful privile^^cp of tho Senate by nrfuaiug to E<^d in noinluatious of officera Hppnintcd ny him during the rccc're of that body, and, after their adjo'iruiucnt, rc- a Tointing others who had been rejected by tfaerti na unfit for the places for which thev bad been recoraraended. For thi?, he had broken the privileges of and insulted the pougreBs of the LJuited States, oy inatructbig thum tliut the I work of reconatructiou belonged to him only, and tl\.at tliey had no legialative right or duty in the premiaeB, but only to register hie will by tbrow*ing open their doors to such cliiiraauta aa might come there with cominirtainna frora their pretended governraents, that were aubataniiHUv hie own. For this, on their refueal toohey hia iraperial reeciipt, he had arraigned them publicly as a revolutionai-y aBsembly, and not a legal C'jngi-(w?. without thepower ti lepielato for the Statee excluded, and aa traitora at the omer end ofthe tine in actual rebellion againat the peopltt theyhad aubdued. For thie, he had grdaaly abused tire veto power, by dldappraviug every hnportant measure uf legialation tflat concerned the Rebel Statee, in concordfince with public declaration that he would veto all the inu;l- Huroa of the law-making power whenever they camf to him. For thi«', he had deliberately and cohfeaeedly c-ccr- , cised a diapensing povver .over the Teat Oatli law by .i,"'- pointing notorious Rebels fo important placea In the lli've- nue aervice, on the avowed grouud thaf the policy of Cnn- gress iu that regard waa not in accordance with liIs opinione. For thiefche.hadobatruCtedthe aettlemeut of theuMtiou by exerting all hifl influence to prevent tho people oftl>« Rebel Statea from accepting the Conetitutioual Amund- mcnt. or organizing under lawa of Congreas, and luipivs- ing them that Congreaa wae blood-thlraty and Irapl;Lc;ible, and that their only refuge was with hiin. For thie. he h-id liroueht the pationago of hie office, into couHict "with iHo freedom of electione by allowing and encouraging hia official rctiiincra to travel over the couutry attendi it; politioiil couycntions and.addreaalu^the people In aupfHirt of hia policy. For thii, if he did not enact tho part of !i Crorawell, by atridiug into the halls of representativea of the people and aaying to nne man : "you are a hypocrite ;" to another, "you are a whoreinonger;" to a third, "vcri are an adulterer;" and to the whole, "you are no lunger a parliaraent," he Jiad rehearsed the earae part Bub stantially outeiqe hy traveling over the counti^y tud in Indecent harangues, aseailing the conduct nd impeaching the motives of Its Congreaa, Incul- eating disobedience to Its authority by endeavoriug to bring it iuto disrepute; declaring publicly bf oue pf its members that he vyae a traitor; and of another th;i.t he waa an aeyaealn: andof fhe whole that thev vvere np longer a Congreas. For thie, in 'addition to the opprosifinn aud bloodshed that had reaulted from known partiality for traitora, he had pointed at efforta encouraging the mrtr- der of loyal citizene In New Orleans hy a mob, by holding cofreBpondence with ita lea.dera; denouncing theexerc-i*c of the right of a political convention to aeaemble peacefully in that city as an act of treaaou to be suppreaeud by vio lenco, and commairaing the railitary to aasiat. Instead of preventing the execution of the avowed pui^oeo of dis turbing them. For thia it ie not too much to aay, in view of tho wrong and outrage, and the cry ofpuiFerlng that haa come up to u.tupon the Southern breeze, that he had in effijct reopened the war, inaugurated anarchy, tumed looae once more the inc.ar- i.ate devil of baffled treason and unappeaeeable hate, when, ae we fondly thought, our victories had ovci'throv^'u and bound in chain?, ordained rapine and raurder frora t)>e Potomac to the , Gulf, and deluged the atreeta of Momphia aa well aa those of New Orleana, and the green fields of th'o South already dotted with ao many patriot graves, wiih- the blood of martyred citizens; and becauae for all he h.'is notbeen called to render an account, for the roaaona that have been already named, it ie now aeeuraed and argued by his counael that he standa acquitted bya judgnie-it which disaffirmed ita truth, although it rests for the inoat part ou record evidence, in fact, that absolute verity which IB, of course, not open to diajmte; : ¦ The aasumption is but another instance of that incorri gible bliudnesa on the part of the PreBident In rcgitrd to tho feelings and raotives of Congress that haa helped to hurry hira iuto hie preaent humUiating predicauientj as a criminal at your bar. But all theee thiuga were not onongli. It wauted one drop more to raake a cup of forbearance overflow, one other act that shnuld reach the aenaoriuiu of the nation, and mako even those who might bo slow to compreheud a principle, underetand that further forboar- auce waa ruin to ub all, and that act was doue In the at tempt to seize by force ar stratagem, that department of tho govemment through which ita arraiee were coutrollod. It waa but a logical eequence of what had gone before the laat of a aeries of ueurpatione, all looking tu the aaiue great purpoae. It did not riee. perhapa, hej'ond the heiglvt of many of the crimes by vvhich it was uahered ii^r But its raeaningB could not be mistaken. It was au act that smote upon the ear of the nation iu such a way as to render it impossible that it could be either concealed, disr paraged or excueed, aa were the muffled blovve of the pick- axe that had beeu silently undcrraining the baatioua or thd Republic. It has been heard and fclt tlirough all o ur wid^ domnin like the rcverbatlon'of tbe guns that opened their iron throats upou our flag at Sumter, and it has stirred the loyiil heart of thepeojple agaiu with tlie electric power that, lifted It to the neishth of the Bubllinest issue that ever led a martyr to the stake or a patriot totbe battle-ficldi T4iatpeopIu Is here to-day. through Ita repreecntiitivca. on your floor, and In your galleries. In the persona alike of the veterans who have been scarred by the iron hail of battle^ and ofthe inothers and wivoe and d*ughterB of tliose whO have died that the Republic might live, as well aa of thd coiuraieaioned exponents of the public will, to domand the reward of their tpils-, tho consummation of tKeii: tn-impli —the award of a natlou^a ^tlce upon the high offender. .\nd now ae to the immediato i&*ue which I propose ta diacuas only in its constitutioual and legal aspect: Thu great crime qf Andrew Johnson, a^ already- vpmarked. 220 IMPEACHM]BNT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. THihiin^ through all bis adminiatration, is that be bas vio lated hia oath of oDrcc and bia c -institutional duties^ by ob struction and infractiou of the Constutlon and fhe laws, and an endeavor to set up his own will jieainyt that of the law-making power with a v^ew tq a feettled and perrietont "purposeof forcing tne Rebel SBatce into Congresa on his own terms, in the inferest of the traitors, and in defiance ofthe ivill of the loyal pe'bple of the United Statea. The specific offenaee charged herfe, which are but tlie ciilmi- natiug fjicts, and only the last of a long series of usurpa- tioiu, are of an unlawful attempt to reraove the rightful Secretary of War, and substitute in hie places creature of hia owii,'without the advice and coneent or tbe Senate, although thou iu seesiou; a conapiracy to hinder and pre vent hira from resuraing or holding the said office after the refusal of the Seriate to concur in his euapisnaion ; and tq sfeize, take and poeaesa tho . property ot the United States in eaid dopartraent- an attempt to debauch au officer of the army from hifl allegiance, by inculcating " inaubor din ation to the law in furtherance of the aame ob ject ; the attempt to eet apidc the rightful authority of Con- gressi and to bnng it into public odium and contempt, and to encourage resietance to its laws by the open aud public delivery of Indecent haranguee. Impeaching its acta and purposea, and full of threats nnd meuacea againat it and ana the laws enacted by it, to the great scandal and degra dation of Mb own high office as Preaident, and the devising and contriving of nniawful means to prevent the execu tion of the Tenure ofOffice,.4rTny appropriation and Recon struction acta of March 2, 1867. To allow theae which re- ' latcB to the attempted removal of the Secretarv of War, the answer I?:— Firet, that the case of Mr, Stanton ia not withiu the meaning ofthe firat eection of the Tenure of Oifice act; secoud. that if it be, the act is uuconatitutional and void, so far as it undertakes to abridge the power claimed by him of reraoving, at any aud all times, all executive oth- tioual or otherwiae, it was his right, fta he clairas It to have been hia purpose, to diaobey and violate tt, wiih a view to tie settieraent of the queation ot its validity by the judi ciary of the United States. And firat, aa to the queation whether the preaent Secre tary of Vyar waa intended to bo comprehended within tho firat aection of the act referred to. The defendant in.ii«tB that he waa not. forthe reaeon thathe derived his cora- mlBsion from Mr. Lincoln, and uot being removed on hia acceealon, continued, by reaeen thereof, to hold the olhco Rndadniluieter its dutiea at hie pleausre onlv, without at any time having received any appoiniiuent from hiin.»elf, aspuraing, aa I undorataud, either that uuder the proviso to the first section of tliis act the caae wae not provided ff^r, or that by force of its expreas lauguage his omce waa de termined by the expiration of the firet terra of thePreai dent who appointeri hira. The body oi* enacting ciauae of thia section provldce that every person then holding any civil office who had been appointed thereto by and with tbe advice and coueent of the Senate, or who should be there.iftcr appointed to any auch office, should be entitled to hold until a successor is appointed In the like manner. Itis therefore that Ita general object waa to provide for aXi cases either then existing or to happen in the future. Itis objected, however, that ao rauch 01 the clause as re- ¦i ferred to the heada of departments iasubstantiallyrepealed by the saving claueo, which ia iu the following worda--^- *' Provided, That tho Secretaries of State, of the Treaeui-y, of War. of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Poetraanter- Goneral and tho Attorney-General, ahall hold their offices respectively for aud during the terra of the Preeident by whom they may have beeu appointed, and for one mouth thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and coneent of tho Senate." Thia proviao waa the result of a conferences on the dieagreeing votea on tho amendment of the Housct atrikins the excoptiou in favor ofthe beads or departments,, and was sugsoated, if he raay be excused the eg'itiBin, py the individual who now addresees you and to whom, as the ihover and advocate 'of the araend ment, w^a' very naturally aaslgned theduty^ of conduct ing the n^Botiation on the part of the House foi* ttfo purpose of obvifitina the objection, taken in debate ori this floor by oue of the Seuate raanagera. that the effect of tho araendraent would bo to impose on an incoming l*i'6?ident a Cabinet that waanot of his own selection. I may be ex cused for speaking of its actual history, because that has been made the subject of comment by the learned counael wbo-opcnod- thia caso on the nai-t of the Preaident. If it was^ inteuded or exacted that it ehould so operate as tb create exceptions m favor of an officer whose abuse of Sower wa- the proximate cause. If nnt the Irapelingmo- .vo for the enactment of the law, I did not know it. It will be judgedi-however, by itself, without reference either to the particular intent of him who penned it. oi to any hasty opinion that may have been oxpreseed in cither house aa to the conatruction of which'lt might be siiecepti- ble.- The argnnjent of tho defendant rests upou tho moan ing ofthe word "appoiuted,*' Triat word was both a technical aud a popular one. In the former, which involvea the idea of a noinluation and coniirraatiou in the constitutional way. thero was no ap pointment, certainlv, by Mr. JohUaon. In tho latter, which is the eenae in which the people will read it,4Jiere unques tionably was. Wh at then waa meant by the employment of tho word? It ia a aound and*ell;accoptt;d rule in all tho courta, in exploring f^o meauffig of thi law given, espe cially in casea of remedial atatates, aa I think this is, if it ia not rather to be considered ns only a declaratorv one in this particular, to look to tbe old law for the miscmef and the remedy, nnd to give a liberal construction to the languaffiiB iiifavore^b libertatis, in order to repress the miachfef a'ud advance tbe I'emedy, taking the words used in their ord^ nary and familiar sense, and varying the meauing as the intent, whieh is always the. Polar star,, may require. , Tenting the caae here by this, what ia tp be the ebriatrfft). tion here? The old law waa not the Constitu fcion.but^ vicious practice that had gone outof a precedent inviuPh ing an early and erroneous conal^uctiou of that ineti'tft- raeut, if It waa inteuded so to operate. The miechief wA thin pra,ctice liad rendercd.the officers of the govei ninci^ and among thera tbe beads of departraents, the inqat nuv^ erful and dangerous of all, from their affluuned positiun qf advisers ofthe President; by fhe very dependency of their tenure thfey were miuieters of his pleaaure and the slaves ' of hia iraperial will, that could at any motucnt, and as I tho reward of an honeet and Independent opinion, sti^ them of their eraplovinenca and send, them back Intb ' ranks of the people. The remedy, would change tlilS from mlniona and flatterers into men, by makiug tbera ' free, and to eecUre their loyalty to the law by protectlqg them frora the power that migiit constrain their aaseat to I ita violation. To accompliah this it was necessary thatthe 'ifiw should cover all of them, high and low, present atui 1 proapective. That it could bave been intended to except, tbe most tli>- portant and formidable of these fuuctionaries either ^vlffi a view to favor the present-executive or for the purpoae w Bubjectiug the ouly head of department who had the con^ deuce of Congreas to his arhitrary will, ia ae unreaeoriabfe and improbable as it is at variance with the truth and wilia the obvioua general purposes of the act. For the Preeideut ofthe United States to aay, however, now, after havuag voluntarily retained Mr. Stantou for more than two yeaia of hia adminiatration, that bc Waa there only by auffeiv ance, or aa a mere movable, or heir-loom, or inc;umhranee that had pasaed to hiiu with the estate, and not by virtue of bia own epecial appointment, of not paltecing vi'ith the people in a double sense, has very much the appearance; of a not very respectaJble quibble. , , Tho unleafnedman who reads tbe proviso, as they ft* whose perUsal it ia intended, vvill read It, who la km accustomed to hand the metaphlsic Bcisaora of theprc^ fca-nonal caaualSts who are able *' to divide a hair 'twist west and riorthweet aide," while he admits the ingenulEy of the advocate will stand amazed if he does uotBcora the officer who would atoop to the use df such a subter fuge. Aeaumiug, however, forthe Bake of argument, thtt tho technical sense is to preveut what is to bo ita effedL Why, only to make the law given enact a more unreason able and imposaible thiug, by providing in Whrda ofthe future eenae, that the coramieBiou of the officer diall expire nearly two years before the paaeage of the law,' which is'a conetruction that the general rule of lavv forbids to tdst, let ue Bubatitute for the general denominative phr^ea of Secretary of War. of State, and of the Nav-y, the naraes of Meaers. Seward, Stanton, and Wellea, and for that of the Preaideut who appointed them the name of Lmcoln, and the ciauae will read, provided that Seward, Stanton,- and Welles ahnll hold their offices reepectively for and duriogtho term of Abrahara Lincoln and for ono month thereMten, The efl'ect tt-ill thenbo to put yon in the po?itinn;ofhavii:§ enacted, not ouly .an absurdity, butaiiimpofelbmty.Buton this there are at Icui-ttwo ruliia of interpretation'' that atari up iu the way of solution. Tbe first Is, that it^ ie not re spectful to the. Legialature to presume that It ever intendffl to enact an abaurdity, if the caae is suscepHiblo of anv other-construction; and thn second, that acts of ParlS- ment that are inipoaaible to ho. performed; are of im validity, and if there arise out of tMtm collaterally anv ab surd conaiquencea, nianifeatly contradictory to conimon reason, they are, with regard to these collateral coriwj- quencee, void. , If the effect of tho ptovUo, however, upon aomethintt analogous, to the doctnne of cypres, or. in other words, 6? getting aa near to the inettniug as poseiblei was to deter mine the olhce at the timo of the pasaage rfftho law, thefl, on the other hand; the retention of the officer hy tho Pre* Bideut for five montha afterwarda, and through an Inte?- yeujng Cpngreaa, without a coramission, or isven anoiyj. nation, was a breach of the law, and therefore 'a raisd'o- meanor in itself, which ho could hardly plead, and could scarcely ask you to affirra ag:iin3t thC general preBuraptioU of the performance of oflicial duty, for the purpose of ehclr tering hira trom the coneequences of another vicrfation of law. Assuming again, however, that, as is claimed by the do- fena^, the case of Mr. Stanton does not fall within the proviso, what thei\ is the result? Is it the predicaraent df _a casMSom7«swa altogether? Is he to be hung up, like Ma.- "fj?1*^^ S°S?' '^^tJV^^^^.'i "i<^ l^ody of the act and tho pni. yi^, tbo latter nulhfymg the former on pretext of, afl ex ception either repudiating tho exception iteelf aa to the paiUc ular case, or in tho obvious and indisputable viivt poae Of proyidmg for all cases, whatever ia to bo carried out, by falUug back ou the general eaactiug clauee, whl^ b would inake hiiu irreraovablo by tho precedent alone, and leaving bira oiiteide of the proylaion as to tenure, whiift waa the sole object of the exception? Ihere is nothingin the saving clause which is ataU *» consistent with what eoes before." The proviaiou thai takeaevory officer out ofthe power ofthe Presidu-ut. ia uS departed frorait in fjbat clause; 'all it euacta is, tbat tlfi temim shall be a determinate one iu casee that fall withS ;:¦«!¦ 5r ¦ stantpn w^ appointed by President Johnaoi ^^Li'Vil*"® ™-'^*"i^S of the proviaoibe holds, of conrsA until thu expiration of hia term. If uot, he holde subjef^ to roinovali Hke other officers Uudoi".tho enacting ciauae! it uas been so otten asserted publicly, as to bave become a IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 231 gcnorally accredited truth, that the meclal purpose of tbe act vvas to protect him. I do not affirm this, and do not consider it neceesary to say that I sbould-or important to the caae whother ho favored the passage of tbe law or not. It will be hardly pretended, however, by anvbody, that la waa intended to be excUided entirely from Its opera- on. Nor Is the caae helped hy reference to the-fourth sec- ion ofthe act, which providea that "jiothing herein con- Mnod shall be construed to extend the terra of auy "ffice, Q duration of whkh ia liraited by law." The office In ication was ono of Thoee which the teuure was indefinite. 'he conetruction insisted upon by me does not extend It. "le only effect is to take away the power of removal from ,0 Preeident alono, and restore it to the parties bv whom ^e'Conatitution intended that it should be exerciaed. Aa- JjMiing then that the caao of Mr. Stanton is within the ^iv, the next question ia aa to the validity of the law itaelf. , And hern we aFe met, for tho first time In our hiatory aa fpnaflpn. bythe assertion, ou the part of tffe Preaidont, of UIO illimitable and uncontrollable power under the Couati- Ujtion, in accordance, as he Inaiets, with the judicial pinion, the professional sentiraent and the eettled prac- flc© under tbe government, of removing, at any and all umea, all executive officers whatever, without rea^onai- mlity to anybody, aud as included therein tho equall- un- CpntroUable power of suspending theift indefiuitely, and 'Applying their places, from tirae to tirae, by appoinfraenta thad"' b^ himpelr ad interim. If thore be any caae where Wie claira haa heretofore extended, even in theorv, beyond tne mere power to create .a vacancy by removal, during me recess of the Senate, I do not know it. If thoro be EQfV wherein the power to suspend indeflnitely, which goea e¥en beyond what has been oseerted, it is equally new tome. This trulv regal pretension haa been fitly reeerved for tStte firf*t President who has over claimed the imperial pre rogative of foimding governmenta by proclamation, of taxing without a Congresa, of dlepoalng of the public prop- &ty hy railllouB at his own will, aod of exercising dispeas- fcjg power over the lawe. It Ib but a logical sequence of what he has beon already permitted to do without abso lute impunity nnd almost without complaint. Ii be could be tolerated thua far^ why not conauminate the work which wae to render him supreme, and cfown hia victory <^cr the legialative power ny setting this body aside aa sn advisory council, andclaiminghimself to be the right- Rd Interpreter of the lawB? TThe defeuae made here is a defiance, a challenge to tha Senate and the nation that must bc met and answered juet now iu euch a way ae Bhall determine which, if any, is to be the master. If the claim aaserted is tobe maintained bvyoiir decision, all that will remain for yon will be only uie formal abdication of your high truat aa a part of the ^pointing power, hecause there will be then absolutely npthing left of It worth preeerviug. But let na eee what there ia in tho Conetitution to war- nmt these extravagant preteueioiifl, or to prevent the paa sage of a law to reatore the practice of this governraent to the true theory of that inatruraent, 1 do not propose to weary, you with a protracted exam ination of this queatloD. I, could notadd to what Ihave Sready eaid ori the aame aubject, on the discuenan In the Houae of tho bill relating to reuiovnla frora nffiep. In Da- ^mber, 1866. to which I would havo venttu'od to IrivitS your attention If tho same poiut had not beeu eo fully fijaborated here. You have already paaaed upon it in the enactment of the preaent lavv bv a, voto ao decisive and #wwhelraliigi and there ia so little objection on the.part ra the counael for the President by tho validitv ofthe law, ttiat I may content myselS with condensing the argumenta (fc both eidea into a few general propoBltlons, which will fltomprehend their capital featuree. T'he caee may be stated, as I think, analytically and ri'noptically thus:— The first great fact to be obnerved is mat, while the Conetitution enuracratci sundry officea, ^d provider the manner of appointraent in thoae casee aa well aa iu all othera to be created by law. It preecribep no tenure except that of good behavior in the caee of the iitdge, and ia ei^tirely alleut on tho aubjoct of removal by 0^^ other process than that of irapeachraent. ¦ ^om thie the inferoncea are:— iFIrst. Thatthe tenureof good behavior being flubstan- ' dVilly equivalent to that for life, the oRieo miiHt. in all other Caces be determinalfle atthe will of ?ome departraent of the government, unleaa limited by law. wliich la, however, but another name for the will of the law-maker hiraaelf, and thie Is aettled by authority. fecond. That the povver of removal at will being au ira- inied one only ia to be conferred to those casf^H where the tenure.ia uot aacertained by law, the right of reraoval iu a;ny other form than by tho nroceas of impeachment de pending entirely on the hypothceie of a vvill, of which the ea-"(5utial coudltion alvvaya ie that itis free to act without ra-iponaibility, > 2l nird. That the power of reraoval being implied aa a ne- c6?eity of State, to eecure the dependoafcc of the officer on the government ia not to be exti-nd-d bv conatruction so aa tu take hira out of tho control nf the Lucrirfature, and make hi)ii dependent on the will of tho Executive. *Jlie next point la, that the PrCadent le, by .the terma of tV Oouatitutiou. to nominate, and by and with the advice and conaent of the Sonate "appoint" to all officefl, aud that without the coacurrence he appoiuta to none, except wtien aliiorized by Congreaa; and thif may he doEcnbed as the riilu iif the Conatitution. The excptiona are:— FirKt, Ihat ia tho caaea of inferior oflicera, (;oigreeB may lodge thia -p.vi-r with the Preaident al Bible head of the government, charged by bin oath with tba execution of the aarae, that ho ehould control hia own eii- ^rdinatea by raaking thoir tenure of office to dei'ond upon ma^will, so aa to make a unit ofthe Administration. Tiic anawer to the first of these propoaltiona w that there ia no neccBfity for the exerciae of the power druirig the re^ cess, because the caae auppoBcd may be provided for hv Congress, ae it hae been by tho act now in questiou. undi-T the express conetitutlonal authority, to make all biws which ahall be necesaary or proper forcarryinginto execu tion all the powers vested In the government, or any d* partment thereof. A power which, bv the way, i' very strongly claimed by ono of the President's couueel to be oa implied one. To tho second the auawer ia, that whether an executive power or not dep.nida on tho Btructure of the govornraentj or, In other worda. on what the Corietl tution makea it, that the clauso in question is but a disturbance. That if all executive power is iu the President, then by partlv of reason all legislative power Is in Congreas without refo»- ence to the Constitution; that the Senate ie not only aspociated with the President in the genoral appoint- lug povver, bwt that the power itaelf may be vtitl*. drawn by Congreas almost entirely frora noth, under the provision in regard to inferior officera, whicii would involve a repugnancy to ttie general grant relied on, if thepower be an executive one; that if the provision had been made for appointmente in the Couatltution the power to supply the omIeBlon would bave resulted to the law maker under the authority juat quoted to "make all laws that might be neceaaary or proper for carrying into execi> tion all power vested in the government or any depart raent thereof, which carriea w4th It tho powes to create all ofHeea, and that inorpover the power of reraoval iu the only caee wherein It ia referred to, la made a.jit.(icial one. To the third the answer is:— Plrat, That however natu ral it may be for the Preaideut, after an unchecked career of uaurpatifin for three long yeara, during which he has uaed his st'ib-rdinatea geuerally an tho ulavl^h miuietera of hia will, and dealt with the affairs of thia nation aa If ha hud been ite raaster, alao as well aa thelr's, ,he greatly raia- takca and magnifies hi>= office, ae haa heen already eliovva in the fact that, under the Conatitutiou, hri mav bo stripped at ahy time by Congi'cafl of nearly the whole oi the appointing power; and eecond, that the responelbiuty of the President 13 tobe graduated ly, and can be only coraraeUBurato with the power that ia aasigned to hunt- that the obligation imposed on hiiu ia to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and not his will, which is so etrangely atsumed to be tli^ oniyia^v- of the exalted functlonarlee who eur^ round him. and that it is not only -iwt essential to the performance of this duty, uuder the law thaj heads itf departments ehould be the raere paesiveinatru- ments^f his will, but tho ve^ contrary. Upon thi.i brief Btatement of the arguraeut, it would aeera aa if the* could be no reaaonable doubt aa to tho meaning of tha CoflHtitution. But the high delinquent who la now on trial, feeling that he canuot safely reat hia caae here, and sA'ingiue from the inexorable logic that ruloa against him, takee refuge in the past, and claims tohave to;ind anevic Conatitutiun that euits hira better than the* old oue in the judicial authoritiea, iuthe opinlou of the commenta- tore Inthe Encliah professional aud public eeutinieutof the nation, and in a legielative practice and couatructiou that are coeval with the government, and have continued, without interruption, until the preaent time. A little in-miry, however, will mow that there le no altar or aanctuary, and no city of refuge there to sHclter the greatest of the nation's malefaetor« from the j'uot ven. geii-uce of a b-jtraved and indignant poople. And firet, as to judicial authority. There arc but three ca.«es, I think, wherein these questibuB have come up for adjudlcatiou before the Supre^no Court of tho unit-^d Statea. and in all of tbem the deciBions bave been directly In condict IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. ¦with the theory and pretensions of the Preeideut, The first waa the familiar oue of Marbury va, Madison Uat Cranch, 256), made doubly memorable from Lhe fuct that It arose out of one of the so-called midnight ap pointments mado bv the elder Adaiiis— the earae, l^ the' TV ay, whoae casting yot© ai) an. .executive officer turned the scale iu favor, of • tl)e power to which he V aa destined to aHcceed—iu tluj, laret Congress .of 1789, on the eve of Ins retireniuut.unqer.fi law- winch had beeu apprijvod ouly the day before, authorising the 'appoint- Bn-ntoi five justices of the . peacie for the Diatrict uf Co lumbia, ft).«ervo respectively for the term of five years. Tlie coimiiiesion iu queation had besn dul.y signed and resi.'tijred. but vaa withheld bv hij Bucceaeor, Jefferaon, on the ground that the act waa inoorapleto without a de li vei\ . It waa not chiiraed by hira tbat the aqpointraeut ¦nae revocable if once cont*u ram ated. Jf it had been re vocable, reelfitance would have been imnecehsary, and the a.'rfiertion of tho rk'ht of tho office an idle ohe. ;¦ '_ Chief Juatice Marahall. in dullperiue the Opinion of the conrt, hulda this/iunsuage:— "Whenan ofliceriareinovable at fhe will of th^ Execuiive. the cireunistaucea which cora pelled hie appointment ie of no cuuaequenee, becauao the act ia at jiuv time revokable;biit vvhen the officer la not rcrao* able at the will of (he Executive, the appointraent ia not revokable aud cannot bo,auuiilled. Hiivmgouce nuule the appointraent, hie povver ovor the office ia terminated in all caaea when by thu law the office ia uot removable by I fien, as the law creating the oflice gave tbe light to hold lor livo veare, independont of the i-.xecutiv.e, tlie ap- niutinentTvaB uot revocable, but rested in the officer. 'he poiut ruled here ia preciaely thesame as that involved iu the Tenure of Officeact, to-wit:— That Congri'ifis may dethie the tenure of any office It creates, and that onde 5' fixed by law. It id no longelr. dotermiuablo at the u ill of anybodv, the act, being a mere aubstitution of the will ad tl)c I a;"iou for that of tho Exiniutive, by giving to thai will the form of la-vv which ia indeed tlie only forra that ia cuusidtentlv adraisBiljlo iu a governmeut of litw. '1 he preseut JixccutiVeinauts, as Jeffereouidid not, that be baa povver under the Gonatitu tion toremove or suspend, ttt.anv and all tiruee, any executive officer whatever, for cau.-e":j to bo judged of oy himself aloue, and that, iu the opiuion of hie advisers, thia power canuot ,be lawfully rer fet!:iiucd, whieh la, in eflect, to claim tlie power to appoint V ithiuit the advice and coneent of tho Senate, as bo has juf t now done, a^-. well aa to remove. The uext.cacc in ordor la^that ex parte Henan, reported in 13 PcteiB, which involved «,: queation as to the right ofthe Judge of the Piatriot Court of Louisiana to re- iuove, at (lis, diacretiop, a, clork appoiuted by him Indefinitely. Uidcr the law the court said (then Thi'iur'snii, . Jurtiee, delivering the opinion) that' all ofliccB, the tenure of which ia not fixed hy thu Con- Btitutiuu or iin)Ited by law. must be held .eltuer during good behavior or at the will and diaevotion of Bonie de partment of.the goveruuionf, aud aubject to reraoval at p\(.'asure. And again, that, in, the, absence of ali iioubtitu- lioual proviaions or statutory regulafioue, it w ould seem to he a Sound aud neceesary ruld to consider tho power of reinoval aa au incident to •the powcr to appoluc. They »dd, however:— But it vvas very eai'ly adopted as the practical couBtrnctlon that the power waa vested In the Preeideut alone, and thlit sucn would appear, to h%ve ht'cii the legielivtive constructiibii, hocaueo, iu establishing tlie three principal Departmiinte of State, War, aud Trca- fliirv, thiiv rtcoguized the power of removal iu the Preei- d^-nt, altiiough by the act of 1798 ostabli^hiug the Navy, • Dep:irtnient, the reference was not by uaiuu lo hira. I '1 e result, wasthat Upon the principlea thus enunciated,. invi Iving the exception UB to cased where' the teuuro wap liuiiu-d by law, aKlaia dowii.In Marbury vs. Madiaou.they declared the power of removal to have been, well exer cised by the judce whb made the appoiutaient uudCr the la 1 , for the reaatn only that It waa au incictut thertitg. It ie v^¦ell worillyof reraark, however. In tlaa connection. tliat, although what ia thus gratuitoualy aaid a^ to therulf there recoguized, it does not conHict iu anyway with the doctrme of Mafbury vs. Madiaon. It la entirely at variauce, as fcccnia tO/ be confeated with the diici.-iou iteelf, whl'-h, on the docttlue of Mr, Madia^on, in tho debate of 1783^ that tho power pf removal wua a aivictly executive one, and pasaed by tht gou<'ral grant ¦ ot the Cjustitutiun, ' unleea * ex- prtaaly denied, or elsewhere lodged, muet havpbeonin- evii'ililvthe other way, because iu that case It uiiiij^havt rcHiilt d not tn thb iudi-'e, but , to the Preeideut, whether a, pi'.'i'c permiseive siib sitantiOdDxercit-e of a power li^e thia, cr even a temporary surrender ou grounda of peraonal cou- fWoncf! or party favor, whci'O. it perhaps violated coustitu- tiOi^al iuterei-t, aud vvds in puiut of i;act authorized as to ail, liut that Bupeiior otncers cau raiae a proscription d.aiaiuBt a constitutional right, or how inany laws it wUi reiiiirc to abrogate the fundaraental law, I vwll not stop BOW toluquiri'. It is suflicient for my purpotfC thatthe ciisf decides that the power of removal i.-' but au incideut to the povver of appointuieilt, ahd that, of course, it caU gnly be exerciaed by the saiue ageucioB as the Teijiute' uf luice act exactly provides, Tho next aud.last caae ia that of tbe United States vt. Guthrie, reported in 17 Howard, 284, vv.hich wiaa an appli- Kitiop fui a. uiandamua to the Secretary of the Treaaury to ooinpel hiiu to pay thelialary of a tcrifitorial judge in Min"- tieaota who had oeen rdmoved by the President before the e^pii-ation of his t,enn, whieh Was fixed by la«- at four yCiiri'." Tho cji3e waa dlaniie.'-ed upon the doctrine that the profceding v\ Hanot a pi-oper oue to try the title to an oMce, ^d thcreupou the questiou of the power to ijemove was not disposed of 'or discussed; except by Justice McLe^' who dw«ented onthe main point aud felt calked; iipou,o5f^ cuurecto-paaenpita the other. " Here MrT^Villiama read extracts frora'^udgeMcLeariV opinion; and coulinued :-It will bo Buid^ perhaps,.! hat all, tbia ia mmlifiod by the remark that "this^power of reni.^ val haa been, perhapa, too long eatablwhod and exercieed to be now qiiestiora^." It is enough, however, to refer tS' the observation which follows that^-"The voluntary a& ti^m ofthe Seuate and the Preaident would bfe necepaaij to change the practice." To ahow what was meant by hini,, such event' aa our evea have witnesBed, and such.a conj. iiinoture of aft'airsfollowing fast upon their heele aa would leave tbe E.^recutive with all his formidable patronage and all the prestige of liis place, without even the ibeagre siVp- purt of a third in either House, were scarry within iTia, range of huraan nrobability when he remarka therefore' tliut it wae, pruhapa, too late toqiiCBtlou it; ¦ ^* Uo raoane, orcotirse. to quoation 16 supceaeiiuiy, as tmi' contest ehowa; if he had meant otTierWiee he would not hiive relerred voluntarily to a ohaugC of pra&tiec uaow|' rating a corrceponding change of tho ConatitUtmi^. -m was to»,good a lawyer aud too sage a etateamau'to ami^' that 4he fuudauieutal law of a great State conld Tffif wrested from ite true conetructiou either by the efroVflol the Lcgif^hiture or the toleration cf a inirfchievous practitfl' aud luonater ^Ice for leaa than eighty yeara. It is apparvul " then; from all the' caees, that tho judiciHl opinion, ep fut frora aufltaining the vieWa of the Preaident, aettlee at leftat two points which are fatal to hie pretenaions W Firet, that Congreea may eo limit the teniu'e cf an office Ofl to render the incurabent ifremvoablei except by the process of impcncliment; and aecond. thaj. the power to remove, ao far as it exist?, ia but an incident' topowertoapT'ojht;ii6r is it any^kuftwer to aay, as hifi been claimed iu debate on thia floor, that there were eaabs of inferior oiliccB where, under the Constitution it wag withiu the power of Congress to regulate 'theii> at its dia^ cretion.' 'Jfierc is nothing inthe provision as to inferictt officere to di^-tiuguinh them from others bevond tbe mera article of ap ¦ointment. Thia Is a queation of tenure, and Chat la equallv undefined ae to both, except in the few'fcam specially linumeraird therein. It waa equally nithltf m, power of Congrees to regulate in ono caae ae In the othOT The right to regulate iii a necessary result of tlie riiShtw create. When it eatabllehes au office ne it haa e^tabliafira! the department bureaus, bvlan-.ithaacfuocessitvtherte^' topreBcribeitsdutieE^'a-ndisay howlong it shAll be Ite and when it sh!' II determine. When it docsaayeo, it'iJi^ hardly be maintained, with any show of rea.'ion, that a povver which iS only implied from the fact that theteniuj, of ofiioe hae been left indefinite iu the Constitution, whim has veated the establishraent of officea iu Cougreaa, shain be held to operate to defeat its will and nhitrteu the life of ite owu creature in caaea were ita legislatiou is eJ^&im And so, too, aa to tht; doctrine that the povver of reraoval ia but au incidentto tho power to appoint. That ia BL'tilwJ' upou grounda of rea-ion ae a general principle, which haffhU moro application to interior officers than to supttriorOnfiSi' The idea is that tho power of removal, whuuevei' il, exiate, is, in the very nature of things, but part aiia parcel of the povver to appoint, aud '^hat, aa a coneeuuence, thepower that raitkee, and none other hiUef uhmafco; and on tnia idea wa? ruled, jn the particular cwff, that the power to remove waa iu the jud^e, becaiiee the authority to 'appoint waa thero. It equally rulea, hO>» over, that where the appointment ie in the head of a d& partment the power ot removal belougs to him; thai' where it la lodged by Cougi-eas iu the Preeident alone, it IB' hira only ; and where Itis iu the Preaideut and B^n&CB' conjointly, then it ia In botli v^ hich is preciaely the dpoti'iue maintained bv tlie majority in Congress of l'.B9. U ought to be a Bu)l:Cient an.-iwer, howovrer,'th:it no auch diatinction waa taken by Juatice Thompson in the Heeqaft' case, alti/ough he referred to the departure frora this nm' In the practical conatruction which had aeelgned thO power to thu President at once. The judicial opini.raa haviug thua signaUy failed to B)ap* port the dsiugeroiTS heresice of tho Preeident, tbe next i^' dort la to that of the stateraeutH of lawyers and piiblici»gf' who have from time t^ time illufrtratod Our hls^fy^; uud here, tbo, it will be found that the great criminal whoifllvt, your bar, has not better aupport than he haa found iil higluT quartera, I am not hcj"« to queation the doctrine vvhich haa been aO etrongiy Urged upon the authority of LordnCoke. That coteniuorabeoua exposition la entiUi-fl to great weight in lavv. 'xakiugitto bo aound, howeveis' it ¦ will ¦, hai^ly be pretended, I aimpoBe; ' that there Is anything of this description which will corapare in value with tho aUtlioritatlve, I niipht jilao aay, oracular utterance of the Federahst, which was thn main agent, under Providunce, in eecuriug for the couaiitution the support of the people of the Beverai .-^.tatea, and has aince occupied the rank of a cla-eic in the political Utei'ature of Ainerica.' And yet, in the aevcntj^ .-iBveuth number of that Bciies, whieh ia aacribcd to the pen of Alexander Haiuiltou hiraaelf, perhaps tho firjt among his peers iu the convention which.framed that i|r .itruracnt. It is assumed aa an 'unquestionable propoaitloui and that, too, inthe way of anawerto the objection of in> atability aViaing from frequent clianges of aaiUiUiatratiQD^ that, inaamuch as the Senato was to participate iU the business of appointment, ite coneent shoul^ therefore be uecc'-eary to displace ae ^ ell as to appoint. Nor was it considered oveu necofiaary to reason out a concluaion thatia so obvious and inevitable. It doea not ueemtohave been supposed by anybodv that a -power ep eminently social could ever bo raiaed In tho execntion of a limited government out of the more ^ct of the bilencA.ox IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. S^ the<;onatitutiou on that subject, and the failure to pro- v>jde auy other raode of removal than by the proceae of ^peachment. If tbe concluBion, however, waa not a eouud one, then it wns uo better thau a falso pre tense which these at loaat concur at present were moratlv eatopped — eatopplsd from' coutrovertiug'^^ and yet it is to one of the distiuguiBhed authore of theae papera in hia qiiallty of a legislator that the nation Ik Saajnly iudobtted for the -vote which inaugurated arid foshioned, eo loug upou it a iniachievoua and anti-republi- Ctui pri u ciple. It does not aeem. however, to have affected any change In the opinion of the dietingiiiahed author, and we liiid hira Iusi<^fing in aletter wntceu teu years afterwards, to iaines McHenry, then becretary of War^ that then the Sower to fill vacancits, happeuiug duriug recees of the enate, ia to be'confined to auch officea ae having been on ct filed,, have becorae vacant by ac'cidentafll^circumfttances. , rom the time of the settlement of the policy of thy go vernmeut on this subject by its first Congresd down to tho ¦jeeeeBion nf the youngei* AdaiuH, in 1826, a period of nearly foi'ty'yCare, the question doee not Bc6m to have been rauch agitated, for the very eatisfactory reason, that the patron age was eo circumecribed, and the caaee of abuee ao rare, 'ba to attract no attention on the part of public men. In the last named year, however, a coramittee was ¦nrieed by the Senate, headed by Mr. Benton, and com- -poaed or aoine ofthe most erainent etatesmen of that day. -to consider the aubject of restrainiug the power b.v Icg- -ialatiou. That committee agreed in the opinion that the 'wactice of 'diamiaeing frora oitice waa a dangerous vlola- ¦fioU of thftCoustitution, which had, iu thi-ir view, been * changed in thi^ogard," very bonstfuctiyo legislation, which "wofi only another name for legialative constructiop, : 'Smd reported sundry bills for its correction, not -qnlike, in some respects, to fhe present law. - Theaeblllafailed, of courae, but with the public recogui- -tion ofthe new aud alarming doctrine which followed tho acceaaion of the next Adrainistration, that the. public ¦oflices, like the plunder of a carap, were the legitiraate 'spoils of the victorloua party. The subject waa revived in 1835 by tho appointment of another committee, erabracing the fpfeat names of Calhoun. Webster and Seaton, for the same aubject. The reault of their labor waa the iutroduc- ition of a bill requiring the President, in all caaea of re moval, to state the reaeon thereof, which passed the SenAtebyavof©'Of 31 tol6,or nearly two-thirda of that body. In the courae of the debate on that bill Mr. Web ster, whose nnsurpasaed, aud, as I think, unequalod ability as aconstitutionnllawyer, will be contested by nobody btild this eiaphatic language :— "After considering "the qiieation again and again, within' the laat six yeara, I am willing to eay that, iu ray delibe rate judgment the oiigiual deciaion waa wrong. I cannot but tniuk that thoae who denied the povver in 1789 had the ; beat ofthe argiiment. It appeai'e,to rag,^aTter j;hj3ro.ughj and! repfati'd,' 'anu'icohecientiiina examination, tliat an erro neous interpretati ou waa given to the Couatltution, iu this resptct, by the deciaion of the firat Cougrops. Aud agaiu, I b:ivc the clearest couviction that they, the Convention, Idoked to uo other raode of dlBpl^cIug au officer than by impeachment, or the regular appUintment of anotiier per- "Bon, And further^ I believe it to be withiu the juet povver 'Uf Congreas to revise the deciaion of 1789, aud I mean to boldraydi'lf at liberty to act.hereafter urion that qi^ation, *iaa the safety bf the governmeut and oi the Constitution -may require. - ^ Mr. Cidhouu wae equally emphatic iu,hiB couderapj-tipu 'of the power, and apeaka of previoua caaes of removal aa feather estceptionable than' ae conetitutlng a practice.' ' A like opinion was obvioualy entertaiued by Kent and Story, ' *the two raoet diatingiiislied pf tlie cominontatora ou the 'Conetitution, and certainly araong the higheat authorities in the country. The fonner, after referring tfj the cou- Btruciion of 1789 ae but "a looae, incidental aud declaratory opinion of CongreeS," was constrainud to apeak of it as a Btriking fact In the conatitutional hietory of our govern ment, fhat a power ao tranecendant aa that which placea at the diapoeal of the President aloUe the tenure of every executive officer f ppointed, and that the Senate ahould -depend on inference merely, aUd should have been JgratuftouSly defolared by the let Congreaa in oppositi6u p Sie high authority of the FederaUnt, and suppoaed or ac- -tfuiieaccd iu by some of thoae distinguished men who ques tioned or denied the power ol Cougreea to incorporate a national bank. (Kent Com., Sec. 14, pp. 308, 309.) The lat- ^erspeakB.aEitivith eaual eraphaais, as "conatitu ting the moat extraordinary cat-e in the hietory of the governmeut of a power conferred by implication inthe Executive, by the fideeutof abare^;|iajqrity of tiou^rc^rfjwhich.haa not been qneetlbncd bu many other occaaiona." (3 Com., Sec. ¦15, 4S.) 1 he saiufi opiuion, too, ia already shown upoh the though thia question waa elaborately argued by myself upon the.introductiuri pf the bill to regulate removala trom officein the Houae of Iteprcaentatfvea, which was sub* Btaiitiiillythe aanio a* the preeent law which was pendifrg at that (line, no voice but one waa lifted up, in the couffife ofa protracted debfito, againet the conatitu tinnality of the meaeure iteelf. What, then, ia there ' in the legiiilatlon of 178y, which le claimed to be uot oulv a cotefnporarv but an authoritative e-vpoaition of the Conatitution, and has no value whatever, except ae an expreaaion of an opiuion na to the policy of raaking the heads of the dopartnientd dS- pendent on the Pri'siden-, unleaa the acts of that era:ill and inexperienced Congreaa are to be taken as of binding fore'ij upou their succeaaora, and upon the courta as a sort of oracular outgiving upon the meaning of the Constitution^ Whateyeriuay have been the material provlelohB of tlip several acte paseod at that seaaion for the cetabliahmcut qf therfC departmenta, it is uot to be auppoaed fhat it was ia- fended to accomplish a result ao clearly uot within thie province ofthe law-maker as the bindlhg settlement of the eehhc of that iustruraiiut on bo grave a question. The efl'tct of ttliese acta haa, I think, been greatly mieunderatood b^ thoae Who rely on theill for eUch a purpoae. Allthat they auiount to la the concession to tho President, in auch u forra aa waa agreeable to hia friendd of a power of removal, which the majority waa diapoacd to accord to him iu omnia where the teUurti of tbe officer waa left indefinite, and the office wa.s, therefore, determinable at will, but vvhich theffi frieuds declined to accept aa a graut, becauae they claimea it aa aright. ' ^ ' ¦ The reault was but a corajpromise, which evaded the Is- ^ue by substituting an implied grant for au express onft» and left the queetiou in dispute just where it found ia The record flhovva, however, that even in thia ehape tra bill finally paeaed the House by a vote of only i39 to 23, '** testimony of Judge .McLean, as cited above, to have been dsbaredby theold " --i^— .^ _:.u »*— _i-„ii „* j^.. •bead. (Bbared by the old Supreme Court, with Marshall at its , It eeeme, indeed, as though there had been au unbroken current of aeuciraent from aourcas auch as theae through all our hiatory againet the exerciae of this power. If there be any apparently exceptional casea of any, with but the eMuivocaloUe of Mr. Madiaon. they will- be found to rest miv, aa I think, upon the legialation of 1789, and the long practice that ie supposed to bave followed ife I raake no Acount, however, of the opinions of Attorneys-General, although I inight have quoted that of Mr, Wirt, in 1818; to ¦flie effect that it waa only where a Congrees had not un- dei'taken to fix the tenure of office that the commiaaion *ouldruu during the pleasure of thePresident. Tbeybe- fnna to the. eame classiae that of Cabinet otncers. It may not be amiss, however, to add justbere, thati al- wos cai'ried only by the caetingvote of the Vice Preaidcnu not properly himeelf a legl?lative but an executive offica^ who had a very dii'cct luterekt iu the deciaion. The ciue fibows moreover, as already suggested, tb^ there was no queation Involved a'a to the duration of tab office. Whether it could.be eo liiuited^s has beeu done m the Tenure of Ollice lavv^ was nota point In controversy and ia uot, of coft'se, decided. That It ihight be so, ia noi disputed as to the Inferior officei;. The thing itaelf wois done,jand tho right.todo it acqiUcacod iu and olfiruied, ^fi shown already in the case of Marbury agaiuat Madiaon, ob early an 1801. . . It canuot be shown^ however.that there fa any diffdrenOe betvveeii the caae df inforior andaupciior officera iu tl^ reapect? There ia no word inthe Couatitutinn to requia that the latter phall hold only at pleasure. Both aro crJ^ ated by law, and Mr. Madison himself adraita, iu toe debate of 1789, that fhe legislative power ci'feateB the officfe, defines the power, lIinitB its duration, aud annexes tl^ compensatidu.' AU that tho Coustltutlon contains is the exception from the gfjueral '^ower of uppoiutiueut in tbe . authority tq CongreBS, to vest that povver, in inferior casfeix iu the President alone, in tlie courts of law or In the heads of departmenta. , ' ,. . But there ia nothing as to the power of removal. K^ thiug but as to the privilege of dlBpeuslng with the benara lu the matter of appoin^ents, and no limitatiou whatev^ upon thp pov^er over the. oflice itaelf, iuthe bne ca^ more th>iuiu the othcir. And now, let me ask, what did the decision amount to. supposing it had eveu ruled tim question at iasuv, but the actof a raere legiulature, wiJk no greater power than .ouraelves? Js there anytliing iu thu proceedings of the Congr6^^ o;f' 1789 to.indicate that it ev(ir aasumed to itaelf the prerogative of eettiug iteelf up aa an interpreter of the, fundamental law., , . , , The men that corapoaed it understood their functlom better than tb suppose that it had any. jurisdiction ov^ queations , of thia aort. If it hivd, .eo ha'yp we; and jud^ ments may bo reversed on a. rehearing, as Conatitutions cannot be; but it it ,dld exist, "'hpnce was it dmve aelves, " , If the reepect vyhich he profesaes for their opiniona ba4 animated nim iu regard tojf he Congreaacs which havo s^ underhis adiniuistratiou, the nation would have been spared rauch tribulation, and we relieved ofthe painfid neces!=ity of arranging the Chief Magiatrate of the Republ^ at your bar for hia crimes against order and libei*ty, and hia open defiance of law. However it may be with otlieri 1 am not one of thoae who think that all wisdom and v% tue have perlahed with our fathers, or that they vve^ better able to compreheud the import of our Inetrument. with whoae practical working they, were unfamiliar, than we who are sitting .upd^r the light of an experience of eighty years, and auftering from the mietakea which, tbey made in regard to the future. '' ^ ' They made none greater than the illusiDn of suppoainfe thatit was impoeaible for our inatltutiona to throw u{i tro -the surface a mau lik^e Andrew Johneon, and yet it was this mistake; and, perhape, no other, that settled the first precedent vvhich wae so likelyto be followed; Iu regasd to the raiBchievouB power of removal fromujffice. But if twe ' ¦""- =" ""-¦• "— -^-' - eiity-niue votes in theja.ous'ff at that day, raaking a meagre majority of only aoVen, and nine only m a Senate that was equally divided In the firat of conatitih tional life, and with euch a President aa Waahington, to 254 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON, evE>n intended to giye, and did ^ve a construction. to our gfOAt ehai'ter of freedora.,wuat }b to be said of 1^ votea to SV, conatitntiDg more thun threj:-fo,urtbs of the House, and ^ ^ to 11, or nearly a like proportion of the other,, in tlie inaturity of our ptrength, vyibh a population of nearly forty niillloua, aud under the light of an experience that has prbved that even the short period of eighty years was capable cf producing what our progenitors supposed to be impoaaible, even in the long track oi time. Rut there is one othor consideration that presented it- jBrtf juat here, and it lBthl8:~It doea not atrike me hy any meane aa clear that there waa anything iu fhe act of 1789, aaide from any suppref-scd attempt to give it th^ force of jan authoritative oprosltiou to the Constitution, that was neccBBarily inconsLitent with the view of that instrument which I have been endeavoring to maintain. Taking the authority lodged by it with the President aa a mere gene ral grant of power, there waa nothing certainly in ita tenus to prevent it, ao far, at least, as regarded the Infe rior Officers, it reaulted fro»i the exproea authority of Congress to vest the power of appointinent in the I'reai- dont alone, that they might have even left the povvcr of .renaoval in the same bands, also as an ihci,deut, and so too as to the superior onea. "'. The power to reraove in any case was but an implied one. If it wae ueccs-^ary, as clairaed, to eiiable the iSxecu- tive to perform hiR proper functions undei' the Conatitu tion, inatead of raiaing the power in hiuiaelfby tho illo- jgical confcfcncr that it rauat belong to him qua executive, Ttpreeentedoneoftheverycaae3forwhieli.it ie provided .expreesly that Congreep ehall "make all laws that ahallbe ¦fieceeaary and proner for carrying into excputiou all ¦powera vested by the Constitution in the Governinent of •the United States, or iu any department br officer thereof.*' To infer, in the face of such fi provisiou aa this, that any or all powers ncceeaary to either department of the go vernment belong to thera of courae, becauae they are nc- Oe^eary, ia a reflection oU the underatandinge ofthe frauiers of the Constitution, and ia, in effect, to millify the provi sion itaelf by'euabling the oth'er departmeute of' the go- VDrnment to diapenec entirely with the action of the law maker. ijut sidraittlug the act of 1789 to knpart iu its extent all ¦tbat It ia claimed tb have decided, it iefurther insisted that thie untoward precedent haa been ripen A Into unalterable law, bv a long aud uninterrupted practice iu couformity trithit. If it were even true ae stated, there would tie nothing marvelous in tbe fact that it has been followed hv otljAjr legislation of a kindred character. It ia uot to be 'ifloubted thait a general opinion did prevail for many years, that all the oflicers of the governmeut uot otherwise pro- ¦^Ided for in the Conetitution, ought to be held at ¦will, fdr the obvious reason among others, thatit rendered the pi'6 OBsa df removal easy, by making an Irapeachmprit unrie-' cbaaary. The only question In diBpiite was, in whose handa tiiifl power could be moat appropriately lodged. _ It BO happened, however, that the first (if our Presidents brought with him Into tho office an elevation of character that placed him above all suspicion, and aasured to hirn a CBuhdi-nccao unbounded that it would have been con aidered entirely aafe to vest him with unlimited command, amd it wAa but natural, aa it waa certainly highlv con venient, that the exercise of that will which waa to 'deter mine the life of the officer, ahould be lodged with him. It ISflolodged; but is there anything remarkable in the fact that the precedent, having been set, should have beeu fol- lovred up in the practice of the government? Itwould have been atill more reraarkable if It had been otherwiae. It waa a question of patronage and power, of rewarding wends and punishing eneraiea. A'flncccssfiil candidate for the Presidency was alwaye sure t?> brine in vvith liira a raajoritv in the populfir branch at leaef, aloug with a boat of hungry followers, flushed with their victory and hungering after apoila. Waa it expected Wiat they sbould abridge Ms power to reward bla fnenda, tfr'air their owh virtue by aeff-denying ordinances? 'Ihat *^6uld havo been too much for raen and politicians too. ^.0,1 vThOugh the wisest Btatesmeu of 'the country had realized and deplored for forty ye^ atleast the great vice which had beengnawing into ^theveryeutf^ailaOf the State. amd threatened to cormpt it in all its membera, there was no remedy left but th6 intervention of that Providence Shich has punned tbe heart Of the nation through tbe oodbfitscblldren, and caet down the man, who biit yes- ,tcrday might have stood againat the world, so low that with all his royal patronage there are none left— nb, t think not one— ao poor as to do him reverence. It ia true, however, that the ucebedent of the Congress of 1789 has been followed invariably and without Interrup tion eince that time. The hiatory Of our Legislature ehows riot only repeated instances where the Tenure of Office act baa been ao precisely defined, as to take the ease entirely out of the contr61 of the Executive, hut some Iu which even the power of reraoval itaelf has been aubstantially oxercieed by Congress, as one would suppose it ralfeht rea sonably be, whore it creates and may dL-ntroy, maikes and uiao' make, even the aubject of controversy itaelf . ' The act of 1801, already ref£!jTe4 to in connoijtion with Vic caae of Marbury va. Ma^^cp, aaalgning a' tenure of ^ve S! appointment of judges iwthe Terrltorlea of Oregon, Minue- • Bota, New Mexico, kauaaa and Nebraska, and fixing the ¦ tprra of office at four year? absolutely, are aU within thr ' aaiuo categury. The act of ^!^th February, 18&, fcdlpwc.c fly that uf June 8, 1864, ep^^Ualjing the oflVce of Cobtrolle genafes, and upon reaaons to be shown, ia another &ttf)t same description The act of March 3i 1866, which authorizes any miHwiy or naval officer who haa been dismlsflod by the aiithorift of the Prefiident, to demand a trial by court-martial, and which, in default of its allowance, witlilpi bIx njoutl(B,^rfl sentence of diamiaeal pr death, voids the order of the Wo^ cutive, aud the act of July 18, 1866, which provides thai no officer, iu time of peace, shall be disiuiaeed, exceptl^ pursuance of a court-martial, or both. Examplea of the like deviation of the strongest kludifln the double reason that the Proaidcnt ia, under thelColh stitution, the Commander-in-Chief pf the Ai'my ,^ad ^•avy of the United States, ^ud none but civjl officers aeB amenable to tho process ot impeachinent, and thMt. tffi officer dlemlsEed ia absolutely tutored, awakened loA new life, and r^jacd to bis feet by the omnipotent 9^ (9 the legislative mwer.<. And lastly, tbe act of IStbof MajV 1820, which diamiflsed by wbolesalje a vc^y large sndiitt portant claas of oflicers, at pfirfods specially indjca^ therein, not ouly Jixed , the teuure prospectively but i» volves a clear exerciae of the power of removal itself-x^ tho pai't of the legislative. Further development in the same direction wouIcTnp doubt reward tbe diligen(;e of the more palps taking S quirer. That however, would only be a work of supererrill. tion. Enough has been shown to dcmonetrate beyond o^ nial that the nractlce relied on bas been an^'thing but unp forin. Toestabliefa eveu a local custom or prcscriplj^ the clementof continuity is as important asthatoftimft Any break in thai ^conti unity by an adverse entry, or eim a continual chain, would a^'est the flo^ of a statute^ limitation againat the rightful owner of a tcneineut. An interruption of the enjoym^mt would bu eqjially fate| to a prescription ; but are we to be told tbat a case whuuL In t)iia view, would not even be aufficieut to establieh con^ position for tithes, or a trifling easement between indp viduals, is sufficient to raise a prescription against a cS. *«eRt byjind wUk tfto i»4Yicfi,aBd,C9uS«it;of tjip wSiTi, .-S '"'J.™° ™fW 1«K, aud that is in tho opinion of what la aometimes called hw Oabiuot, the truated coulk aellui|8 whom ho IB pleased to ouote aa the adviacrs whom i„;.„™j y''i''™ ¦?.¦* the praotico of the government haw aaaigned tp hm>. 11 all thu world haa foraaken h im, thej, aUcaaJ. were atill faithful to the chief wham tliey ao long fhrS*Tw' *"* .^'.Wely comforted aud eooouragcd through i»Jl his manifold naurpatioua,,. It i> tr.ie that those gcntlomon bsvonot been alloived to ptoTa aa they wouM SX^„=?"™" '° do, that maugre, aU the roaaoning -of iudgps, lawyers and puWieieta, thoy are im.pliaitty of the oMuion.and so adviaod the Preaident, that the Tenui e-ot unice law. not being iii accordance with bla will, waa of ^'V;^!S'* j"*"""**!'"""""'- 1' •?'-y •"•' gaeaaed, I auppoae, bawprovSdS '"'"'*"'°' if allowed, ther wpuld IMPEACHMENT , OF ANDREW JOHNSON, 225 'hnn', or known to be agreeable to hie v^ill. If so, I Stinuld have been glad to have heard frora eome of these fonctionaries outhat queetiou, ItTvouldhave been plea- ^Int to havo the ^itnoBBea on the stand, at least to dia- cbu; ae on conetitutioual law. If the public iutereat hna ast eutfered, the public curiosity has. at leaet, beeu balked libjthe denial of ttie high privilege of tflatimony to the uMninouB expoaition which eome of them learned. ¦ The band whoee training baa boen so high aa to warrant them to denouncing ua all— the legislature of the nation— as no better than "Constitution tinkers,'^ should have been able tp help UB with a large defense of tho Preaident. as s«t lorth lu his VbluriiinouE special plea, and elaborated by the B^umeut of hia opening counael, not onlv that hie Cabinet ^'eed with him in his views aa to the law, butthatif he Daa erred, it was uudor tho advice received from those Vbom the law had placed around him. It ie not shown, however, and was not attempted to be #own, that in regard to the particular offonee for which ho ia now arraigned before yon, they are never consulted mr Mvft. But to Alear this part of the case ctf' all :Poa!>ible CavU or exccptiou, I feel that it will not bo amiaa to ask your attei\l|ioiU to a few remarks upon the relations of the Puealdent with this illegitinjate bod.v— this excreecence; ^bifi lUicre fj^ngus, born of decaV) which haa been com- ^unded in proceea of time out ofthe hoada of depart- §cnfe, add haa'sbotup within the past four years into the rmidable proportions of a directory for the general gov- uineut of the State. The first obaervatlon , thoit suggests itaelf ie, -that this de- fiTrtrnre to the advice of others proceeds on the hypothesis Ihat the Prcsidenthimaelf iauotre6poueible.auditla,there- ra'p, at war with the principal thr^jrv of tho dcfenae, which ie that he ia the eole rcsponpible head of the Bxecu- fivo Department, and muat, therefore, ea, iiecessitate, in or- Ber to the performance of hie appropriate duties, have the ' fidisputed right to control and govern and remove them 'hia oWn mere wlllt asbe has juet done in theicaseof r. Stauton, a theory which precludea the idea of advice. In tlie fact that it makes the adviaer a slave. But what, Bien, «ioCB "the Preaident intendf Doea he propoae to aban don this Hue of defense? Ue caunot do it without surren- fliei'iug his caae-. la it his purpoee, thon, to divert ua from the track by ffbuhliug on bi^ pursuers, and leading them ofi' on a false KJout, or doea he intend the ofter of a vicariouB sacritice? Doee he think to make mere acapegoats of hu> couneellors gy laying all his multitudinous ams upon thbir backs? n^ea he pronoee to enact the y.axt of another Dharlea. by Srrendering another Strafford to the vengeance of the inmons? We must decline to aceept the offer. We want np ministerial heads. We do not choose, in the pursuit of fine game, to stop to any ignobler .quarry, either on the laud or on thcBca. It would be anything butmagnaul- nousiuusto take, but would be ignoble iu him to otTer, he he^ds of those whora ourpaet Legialature haa degra- Ipd iuto alaves. When Uarear lalla Ivla couneellors will dia- icar with hiTn;.:perhapB bo thinks, hon ever, that uo- _y ia respon^blo; But shall we allow him to juatify In one breath, the re- EK>val of Mr. Stauton, on the grounda that nuder the law 0 was Stanton's master, and tben, iu another, wheu or- tiftigned for thia, to aay that he ia not rospousiblo for it bc- Scuse he took advice from thoae who are but mere automa- Sns only in his hands and voice, in the language of hia unsel.< and no more than the mere creature of hia iraperiiil ill. This would be a sad condition indeed for the people a republic claiming to be free. We can all understand B theory of the British QonstVtution. " Tbe King ban do no wrong." The peraon of majeaty ia aacred, but the irre- flponeibility of the BoVereign is beautifully reconsidered With the liberty of fho subject, of holding the Ministry re- vBpDueiblet thus laldng care ho shaU get no bad advice from ^ut what is to be our conditiGn, witb no recourse be- breen the two. Either king or miniatry will be uot unlike .ffvhatTO-said.in the touching plaint ofthe Britona, "the narbarlana drove UB to the sea, and tho sea drove us back -again to tbe barbarians." But who made theae mon ;the adviserB of the Preaidont; Not the Conatitution, Certainly -not the laws, or they would have made them free, titill the Cpnstitution has given him no advisera but tbe Senate, -whose opinions he apurued, because he cannot get trom it ¦the advice he wants, and would obtain, uo doubt, if it were tcduccdtotbe condition of thatof Imperial Kome. All it provea in regard to tho heads of department is that he may «eduire tbe opinion in writing of each of them upon any subject relating to the dutiea of hia own icclal oifice, and no mere. He cannot re- ilre it ' as to the other matters, and by the rongeat implication, it was not intended that he ehould rt take it on any matter outsido of their owu reapective tices aud duties. He has undoubtedly the- -privilege hich belongs to other men, "of seeking, for advice where- ever he may waut it; but if he w »ise, aud would be honestly aa he does not wiBh tohc adviaed. he wiU go to fliose who are in a condition to tell him tlie truth, without lhe risk of being tumed out of offioe, as Mn btanton has b6en,for doing so. No tyrant who has hold the lives ot ¦fliorte around him in hie hande has ever enjoyed tho coun- iRaof any b.it miniouB and eycophante. If it had been -|il6J)urpose ot the framera ofthe (JonstitutiGJi to provide ffcounaelfor the Preaidont, thi-v would have looked to it that he was not to be surrounded with creatures sucli aa ^ut tben it ia said that tbe practice of buldiug Cabinet meetings waa inaugurated by Preaideut Wa'^hiagtou, and has Bince continued without interruption. It ie, unques tionable that he did not take tlie opinions iu writing of the heads of departmenta on bille that were aubuiUlcd to him m the couatitutional way ; and it ia not unlikely that he may have consulted thera aa to appoiutraeuts and other ma,ttera of Executive duty that, involved! auythiue like discretion. They may haye met occariionally ra after tiraea upon tbo special invitation of tbo Preedt'nt. II waa not, however, I think, until th'e period of tho war; when the labors and reapdnBibilitiea of the Prerident ae Commander-in-Chief of the Armies were ao la,rgelv mag nified as to make it neceaaai-y that he ehould tiike eountiel from dav to dayj, that they chryettiUzed into thoir fairest form aa a sort of iuijtitutiou of State, and uot till the ae- ceaaioiji of Andrew Johnaon that thev began to do tho worll of Congreaa, in a condition of peril, bylegielatiug for the restoration ofthe Rebel States. . From that time forward, thrpugh all that loug and un happy interregnum of the law-making power, when the telegraph waa vvaitins upou the "fiat" of thoae myf-terioiTS couucila, that dark tribunal which was erectiug Statea b4 proclamation, taxing the people, and aurrendpving up tfte public property to keop tbem on their feet, and exercieing a auiiervisory povver over Uie lawe, had apparently taken tl,- place of the Congr/?as of the nation, with power. True, Cougreaa has ever claimed to say tbat the acta of this cabal, which looked like some dark conclave, and conspirators plotting againat the libertiea of the people. were the reaulta of free conaultation, and compariaon of views ia to apeak without knowledge. I, for oue, mi* triieted them from the beginning, and if I i^ay be excused the egotism, it was under the inspiration ot the conviction that they could not have held together so long under a^ iinperloua aelf-v\illed man like the present Executives without a tliorough aubiuiaaion to all his views, that I was moved to introduce and urge, aa I did, througJi great d?» cou ragein outs, but, thank -God, succesafuUy, the araend nient to the Tenure of Oflice bill that brings about thip confiict. It has come aooner than lexpected, but not top aoon to, vinclicatc, by ita timely rescue qf the moat in> portant of the departmeuta of the government fromthe graapof the PrcHidcut— the wiedom of a measure whichj if it nad been tho law at tho tupe of Mr, Johnson's ao* cession, would, in my humble judgment, have eet his policy aside, and made hia rcijlatance to the will ofthe people, and its project of governing the nation without a CongrosB imposaible. Tho veil haa been lifted eince th^ paaaage of tho law, aud those who wiah now read in le^- tera of living light the great fact that, during the progresa of all thiaueui'pation that haa oonvulaed the nation and kept the South in anarchy for four long years, thera vyop ecarce a ripple of dissent to move the atagnant surface of those law-making aud law-breaking cabals— thoae mere beds of justice, vvho, in accordance with the theory uf th.e President himaelf, bad but one will, that reigned u» dfaputed and supreme. To Insiat, then, that any apology fa to be '.found for the deliuquiuciee of ^ho Preeident in the advice of a Cabin^ where a difference of opinion was considered trjueou to the head and loyaltv to law, inateadof to tho will of the Preaideut. punished by disraisaal, ia, it aeeraa to rae, on hi^ part, the very clinwx of oft'rontery. What adequalB cauee does the Preaideut aeaign for tho removal of Mr Stanton? Hia counael promised ua iu the opening tha(t ttiev would exhibit reasons to ahow that it waa iiupoasible to allow him to continue to hold the oflice. Tj'hey havp failed to do it. They have not even attempted it. Waa \t because he had failed to perform hia dutiee, or in. any way offended againat the lawi* The President allegcB nothing of tho kind. Was it even a peraonal quarrel? Nothing of this sort is pretended. Either all that we ^n hear of ia that there was "a vv ant of mutual confidence.** that "hia relationa to Mr. Stanton were auch as to preclu^ hiin for advice," (heaven save the mark!) or that he dm not think he conld be auy longer safely reaponaible for hhn. Hia couuf'd eay that Mr. Stantou ie a thotn in hie aide. Well, BO aro Grant, Sherman and Sheridan, and ao ie Coi^ gi'eaa, and ao is every loyal man in the country who uuc'a- tions aud reeiete his will.. The trouble ia, aa everybody knows, that Mr. Stantou do^ not iudorse hia policy and canuot be relied ou to asalat him iu obetructing tne lawa of Congresa ; aud that ie juet the reaaon why you want thia thorn to etick, and, If need be, prick aud fcater a little, and it inuet remain there if you ahould be faithful to. the nation and to yourtfclvee.. You cannot let Mr. Stanton go, by an acquittal of the Preeident, without surrendering into hia handa the very last fortress that you still hold, i£ud now are holding only at the point of the bayonet. But there ia a point just here that eeeme to have been entirely overlooked by the counsel fbr the President, to which I deeire cBpecially to invite your attentiou. It seems to have been aesuuied by thera throughout, if it i0 not. Indeed, diatinetly asserted in the, defendant's pleas, that if they ehall be able to succeed iuefitabliahing a pon ejr of removal ic the Preaident, either under tho Conatitutiou orthe act of 1789 erecting thedi'partuientnowiu queatioij, be may exercise that povvcr at liia mere vvill aud pleaaure without respoueibility, and haviug failed to, shovv any ad*. a uate cauae, or, indeed, any cauBo whatever for the aat one, then he standa, of course, on this hypotheeis. But is thia the law? , '> iB there uo such thing as an abuse of power, and a jus* rcepousihility oe iti> attendants? Was it Inteuded In oith^ caee, svhowier tho power flowed from one source or frojffl the other, that it ahould be exercleablo without restraiiw That doctrine would be proper iu a monarchy, perhapSt hut ill suited to the genius of jnstitutlons Uke our ov?bl Mor waa it the opinion of Mr. Madiaon, or those who voted IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. asifl acted with him in the Cougress of I78fl. No man there, who anaortod eho power of removal ,to be in the .Prefiident. or conciuTed In beatowiug on him for tho occa sion, ever supposed thnt itB exercise tras to be a nuoativia Of mere capnc^e or whim or will, to th* objection that thia Would be the effect of the dgetriue cf renjoval. Jt waa ahaworod bv Mr. Mndi«on bimself, in these words ;—*l he danger cou'data merely In tliis,that the Preai dent can displace from office a raan whor-e merits require that he should be coutinued in it; thatwill be the motive wliich the Preaident can foel for auch abu-c of hispower, and the restrailitB tliat onerate topreveut it." Inthe first place he le impeachud bv the House before the Senate for BuCh an act of maUduiInlhtion ; for I contend that the wanton reraovdrof a meritorious ollicer wbuld aubject nnu to impoachmeut and removal from his oWn mgh ta*UBt." And It waa no doubt mainly on the argument that Hiejiower of removal wai erabodied Iu the Uw. What then, have the Prerident and hia counsel to say in amawerto thiK? lathe Preaident impeachable iu hi:* own CnBC, or does he expect to reiilize the points of the argu ment, and then repudiate the very (grounds on whieh the alleged eouetruclion i:et(t8? Was Mr. Stantou a merlto- HouB oflicer? Did hia remits require that' he ehould he Coutinued in the place? No loyal man, I think, dlaputes ^wit they did. and this Senate haa already isolemnly ad jiidged by their deciaion that, npon the reason^ stated by ihoPreeidcnt, that there was no aiiflicicnt candfe fbr hiS wnnoval, while none nthefa have eince beemshown by the feocused himeelf ?'¦ What, then, was the inbtiv^'for tbe a«tof mal-adiuinistratiou, as Mr. Madiaon denomlniitcsit? 1 Nothing thatwe are aWiirc of,except tho fact that the Pro- sWent cannot Control the War QfliCe iu the iutereata of his policy eo loug aa he is there. Was thia. thou, a wanton re moval? It was aomething more ; it waa a wicked one, -and are wG tb be told now that he ia bound to ehow no reaaone, amd cannot be compelled to answer to the nation by thoae who claim thd power of removal for him onthe footing that it alone would bo impeachable? But it it" further' Btreuuouely argued that, although the lawmay be contiti- tutional and the eare of Mr. Stauton within it, as it has already beeu held to he by this Senate, the caae was not ao titjar a one JIB to authorize a charge of crime againet the Prreident unleaa it can bo 'ahown that he naa will fully iniacouscruDd it, and that, although whenever a law is paeeed through the forrni* of legislation it is bis duty to eoe that it Is faithfully exccutL'd, So lorig as it requires no moro than miui^terial action on his tart: yet, where it la a question of cutting otf a power cod ded to him by the Couatltution- -aud he alone can brine dbout a judicial decif*i'infor the eettleraent — if. ou delihur- Hition aud advice, he should be ofthe opinion that the law Wae uncouatitutional. It would be no viulaiion of duty to t^e the nocdfnl wteps and rai^e that queetiun so aa to have It peacefully decided. - Allow mc to aay, in answer, that if ignorance of the law. Which excuBea nobody clao, cannot be held to excuse the very laat man In the nation, who ought to bo allowed to Idottd it? The testimony ehows, I think, that he did not •miauudorstand its moaning. This suMpeueiOu of Mr. Stan ton, which was att t-ntirely new proceedure, followed: aa ftwas. by his report of the cauee to the Senate within !twentyd;iys after ita next meeting, is evideuce thai he did underatand the law aa comprehending that case, dud did not Inteud to violate it if ho could, but gut rid uf ihe ob noxious othcer without resorting to ao extreme aiid hazaid >ub a remedy-; * but the queation here ia not so much whether he iguorantlv and iimocentlv mltJtook the la*'-, as whetlierin the cdae referred to of an interference with the powers claimed by him Bt-d--T the Constitution, he may euepend the operation ofa 1j»w by aMsumiiiglt to be unconetitubjmal. and eettiug It aside until the courts ehall have decided tliat it in a coneti- 'iittional aud valid oue. In tho caeO at iatiuo it ivaa uot necca- iBrtry to violate the law, cither by contriving to preveut tho iucuiubent from roauinlng his placo nnder it, or turning liira ¦out by violence after ho had beeu duly reinstated by the S.-n- -ato.lf he honestlv deaired to t>i8t ita validity iuthe judicial -fwun, all thatife-waa ni^ceasaryfor him to do waa toieaue hia order of roraovdl, and to givo tho oIHccr a noticeof th*^ order aOd ite object. If he refused to obev, the next obvioufi step would direct the 'Attorney-Geuci-al to aue out a writ of qito warranto at hie own relation. l1iif «iae not his course. Thia reraedy «')ia not aummary enough for hie uses, ae his apecial counw^l, employed after tlio arreat of his paeiidi!) Secretary Thomaa testdriea^ bo- 'cauaci would have allowed the law toreigu in then.iean- tinc, inatead of creating 'an intorr^'guuni of mere vvill, by hich he lioped to supereerlo it. Hid pr-jcct vvaato aoize -the place by craft if poBaihle. and by force If uecessary, and for this purpose he claiuia to have mado an arrange ment witli General .Grant for itfl surrender to liimBclf in Ca?c the judgment of the Seuftto should restore tho orlicer, and now taxes him with' bad faith to hiui individually fur hiti obedif^nce to the lay. It stauda. therefore, upou hia 'Own confcsriion'that hijlintcnded to prevent Mr. Stauton •from rts lining hia poaiticm. in which cafle, a? ho well knowi and aahia Attoruey-Genyrnl kuow, and raust have ¦informed him, there was uo remedy at lavv for tne ejected ^ott'cer. 1 Foiled and bafBcd by tho integrity of Grant, after fUll deliberation ho isaued his order of reuioval ou thte Slat of IPabruary. aud sund.-* it by hie lieutenant, Thomas, with a WMnniiHtdon trthiraaeif to act a^ Secretary ad ii^rim, aud 'enter upon the dutiee of his olTiec. He doe^ not Tail to sug- geetto him at the aaino time that Stantou ia a coward and flijvy bo eaaily frightened out >f the place with a prop'-'r * aw of energy on his part Ho tells him also that no cx- Bbjjw yeot* him to -upport tbo Constitution ^nd the laws tta lie uaden^tftnds them. ' Of course. Thomas is a martiaet: he knows no lawTirB he confeafled, but the ordor ofihia Commander-in-Chig| He hoJi been taught no argument but arms, no log^ but the dialectics of hard knoeks, > . Instructed Inr fl^ Preaident, he hoped, to frjghten Stanto© by his lookk;. and he proceeds Mipon his warlike errand, iu all tw panoply of a. bi'igadier, and lofltly demands the keni of thd fortrosa from the atem warder,, who onW stipulates Ifor twenty-four hours to remove his cohm equipage and baggage. The conquest id apparently »£ enay ,»ine, he reports forthwith to liia chief, with the hca vity'.of a Crozar, '^venik..vidi,vici;" and they rejoice 'f" doubt together over thja pusillanimity of the SooretiiT The pulaeant Adjutant then unbends and pleads for l laxafion, after hiH heroic and succeaaful feat, to the delia and myetcrlee of the niasquenide; not, however, until X had foui,'ht his battles o'er again, aud invited hia frienda^. be present at the surrender. On the followiug .niornii^ whl^h'hcadviscd tiiera he Intended to corapi.>l by foroe, u neceesary. The maaquernde opens :— *' Bright thfSftamps ahone o'er fair women and brave iaea, mmbIc aflcenda with its voluptuous Bwell, ¦ And eyea looked love to eyes that spake again, And all went merry as a marriage bell," •; The adjutant himself is there : the epaulette has moddllt^ retired behind tiie domino ; the gentleman from Teiin« see, at least, will excuse me if, after his own exampllBil borro^ from the celeatial armory onwtij(;h:he drawee li copiouFly. a little of light artillery, with which he blais along his track, like a November midnight sky, with oUiCB fianiiug asteroids. "' " Grim-vlsaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled fronH^ And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds To fight tlio Houlrt of fearful adversaries, ' He capers nirably iu a lady's chamber To tho lascivious pleasing ofa lute." Butlo, I a hand ie laid, however, oU bis, which atat'tl&B him in the midst of the fcstivitiee, like the eummonam "BrunsTiick'fi fated ehiofian" at th« ball In Bruafsela, .tM night before the battle In w-hich he fell. It ia the incass^ genof the Senate, who comee to warn' him that bi^ entcjb priec is an unlawful one. On the following inorniug hfii waited upon by auo ther 'Otti cer, w4th'a wai-rant for his in*- roet, for threats which looked to adiatuTbanee of thcpedftk ThlB double warning chillB his niartial ardor; vIbioubm impending trouble paaa before hw eyea; he seee, or thinft he eeee, the return of civil atrife, the floors of the deparft ment daubbcd, perhape, like thoae of the royal polace'qf Hnlyrood, with red spote of blood. But above ali hefe^B that the hand of th^- lan- tmaker andof the law iteelf, whiBfl ia stronger than the swoi'd, ie ou him, and b:e^.puta up ha wca^pon and repairs iu peaceful gulae to tako-l>oeaesalon of hisconqueet. l£d uot propoBe, howevrer, to describe tffi interview which followed. That will be- the task of the dramatist; it will . be sufficient to accompany hiih backO the White House, whete he recelveathe .order to "gooa and tako posaeseinu," which he was so unhappily calted back to contradict, and which It was then well undfi stood, of courae, thathe could itotphralu, except by fonSh and he continues to be recognized as Secretary of War without a portfolio or a care, while he waits, undisr the directiun of the President, not upon the laive, D)it only to aee. like Micawber, what may turn up hero, andn be inducted aud iui'talled, in propor form, as soon aa yoiB previoua decision ahall have oeen reveraed, and hia tiffl aftirined by your vote^ in favor of au acquittal. Tho idoa of a suit, in which direction no ettsp waF^ ever taken;^ now abandoned, if it waa over aerioualy entertained. The converaation, however, with Genei'al Sherman, wto Sas called aa a v\ itnesa by the l^uaident himself, aetflJB ic fact conclusively, if not ab'eady demonstrated by all .the attendant circumstance*, tliat it vvaanothispurpO'=e^l any time to bring the caae iuto the couf te for adiudicati^a. Hepreforrcd tlie dextro^is finesse or the strone hand, to a reference, which every somuble lawyer would have loIiiJ hinl could be attended with only one result^ and-thfttA judgment in favorof tho law. Butin thia great HtraiUiDsteadofaresortto the AttoruM^ Oeneral- himself, hia special counael. Cox, employed oow after the arrest of Thoraaa, ia called to prove tliat he a^ vised agaiuat tho writ of quo loarranto becauae of ''^ law's dolayB," and endeavors to seek a reraedy more sij^ mary through a habe;i.s corpus, in the event of tho corat niituicnt of the Secretary ctd interim. Suppoaing it ial true, however,< the movement came too.' late to help taS emnluyer'a case, by ehowing a dcsirb to put the issue iniJSo way at a judicial decirtiou upon the law. „ Nor ia it clear by auv raeana, that such a iffocCss wduu have achieved the desired reaulta, vvith a warrant goal upon ita face apd charsiug a tlircatened dieturbanco o. -, Ieacc'or an otfunau ugaiUiit a statute, of tho Uuited State doubt whether any court wouldiventuro to declare^K warrant void, or ,to discharge i upon such a hearSpft on thft footing of tho unconstitutiomility of a law whi^ had received neaily three-fourths of the votea of bottt housee, or indeed of any law whatever, while I do not bm how even a deciaion ivgainat it could have .hod either tpB effect of ouBting Stanttm or putting TliomaB JuJiIa v\ac8l^ It is enough, however, for the present purpose, that tlW prisoner was diachargod ou the motion of hiavown at* torney. The counsel for the President adraita that hc.aj*- not, iu ordinary cases, erect hiraSelf iuto a judicial trlbOb- UhI. aud decide th.'Vt a la^v is uncon.^tittrtional, bueaiin the effect would be that there couid never be any judjoiel IMCEA6HMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 257- fl^Hion upob It, but tljioy inaiat, aa already stated, that wneve a particular law hart ciit off a power- confided to Mju by the CoUdti tution, and he alono haa the po\vor to fslije the,queetiou»for the courta: thero Irf no objection to biri doing so; and thoy In.itance the ca.ie of u lavv to pre veut the inufclng of a troatv, or to di'claro that he rfhall not CSKorci^ie tfaefuuctionaof Commandor-ia-Chief. Tt haa boon alroHdy very fully ana werod .that there is no dPldeuce here to show that there v\ as any honest purpoee Whatever to bring thia case into the courte, but that, oU flic contrary, thero la very conclusive testimony to show that he In traded to keep it out of them. But had he a rtghtto hold'thia lavv a nullity until it waa aflirravd by alu/ther tribunal, whether it waa conatitutional or not? *^ho Conatitution givee to him the power of pasBing upon 0 aexa of tlie two houeea by returning a bill, with hia xjectiuns thi^reto, but if It la aftervvardj enacted by two- urda of both Houses, it ia provided that "it ahall become ffliUV." Whatis a law? It la n rule of civil conduct preacribed by the --'upreine power of a Stat^? !?> thure auy higher poivcr than the Iti^IslatureT Ie it essential to tho opera- C>u of a liiw that k should have the approvaliibf the judi- fflorv aa ^'fll as of the President? It is aat'bligatorjyf ou the Hrpeideiit as upiin the liUmbleat citizeu. Nay.^it is, if poaaible, more so'. Hts ie ite'raiulster. Tho Conatitu tlun fuquiree that he shall take caro that it be faithfully oxe- Cv, I believe, that has l>een adjudged invalid, whenever they shall be prepared to do what i** novv supposed, Gou- Btitutigua vv ijl be uaelcBs ; faith will have peri&hed among men ; huiitod and repreijeutative goverumeuta become im- pu<3»iblc. When it coiiies to thia we ahall have revolution, \vitb Woody confiicCH in ourstreetflVwjth a Congreaa Icgirtlatmg bchiud bayoneta, and that amircliv prevailing everywhere Dihit'li is already foreahndovved by tue aapect of a depart ment ijf thiH great government beleagureu by tho minions oe' dei^potiem, \i ith itf head a prisoner, and armed sen tint'ls jiaeirig hut'orc ita duore. Who t^hallBaytliat fhe'PresidoUt Bliall be permitted to diaobey even a doubtful law, iu the BBsertiou of a power that is onlv imiiliedi' If he may, why not also ect aside the obuifxioua aection of the Approoria- tion bill, ui^ou vvhich he' haa endeavortid unaucoeutifully to ifl.;hd"vhich wfw more, than aix moutha af'tnr f ho appQiutment of Gencnul Grant, that there woe a continuing vacaucy at that time^ intending, of courae, that the actof tho Senate in ret fuaiug tolapprove hia sudpvuaiou, and hia resuraption ,m the dutiof* of the offico, were to bo treated as of no acw count whatever. Fromthe proiniaea of the iU'esident thai the Civil Tenure act waa invalid on couatitutional grounda and did uot at aU embrace that, caae:. hia i^nfereucQ of » continuing case is undeniable, and. his aoipQinbincut of Geueral TliomaB, therefore, eutirely iiuautborized by A^ act uu which he relicsi e^ IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW .TOHNSON^; „. _.t there is more iu thia aapect of tbe case tban tho fere failure of authority taken dt.that. Although he 'ght possibly remove during the receaa, he could not sus- ud and appoint a Secretary ad interim except by vu*tue ft' the Tenure of OflEice law, and that it may be well fteadod iu his defense, even though he may have inaiated hat he did not refer tb, orfoltbw, or recognize It. I think t caunot be a question among lawyers, that all the acts tt a public officer are to be conclusively presumed to have wen dune under the law which authorized them ; but then jt will be aaid, as it haa beeu in regard to the proof of fhanges made in the forms of commiaaiona to harmonize icm with the now disputed law, and of other evidence of kindred character, and thia only to aet up th^ doctrine cBtoppcl, which, though uot unreasonable, has been sp ^'ten characterized aa obvioua In the civil courta against a .efendaut in a criminal proceedlig. I am readv to admit '-" t eatoppela ore obvious, because they exclude the truth; , ; I have never suppoeed that they were ao when their feet wae to shut out the felee. It was not for this purpoae, ovvever, in my view at least, that such evidence waa. of - [red, but only to contradict the President'e assertiona by U acta, and to show that, when he pleads, through bis mnaol, if the law was valid, he, honeetly believed fhe contrary, and, if it embraced the case of Mr, Stanton, he Innocently mistook its meaning, and did uot intend wil- ridly to miscouatrue it, be simply stated wbat wqis not b-ue. , ' ^nd now, a few words only upon the general questiou of fift'eut itaelf, which has been made to figure so largely in ObAs, cauae, under the shadow of the raultiplied ' averments in regard to It. I do not look upon these averments ae at tfll raafIeaderB can de mand. • . X do not know that eyen in tbe criminal courts, where an action charged in clear violation bf a la\v forbidding it, and eepecially if it involvea -the caae of a public officer, that it is any more necessary to allege that he violated the taw with the iuteut to violate it, thaii to aver that he wae Bot ignorant of the law, which every man is bound to ^oW. The law preaumee the intent frora the act iteelf, which Ie a neceesary inference if the law is to be obaerved, and Ita Infraction punished, and the party corairtltting it ia reaponeible for all the coneequences, whether he intended fhem or not. It makea no difference about the motive, for whenever the statute' forbids the doing of a thing, the do- big it wilfull, althougb without auy corrupt motive, isiu- flkt able. -Swain's 677, 4. Tenn. Rep. 457. Bo when the President ia solemnly arraigned to anawer ^re to the charge that he had infringed the Conatitution, disobeyed the commanda, or violatea any Ofthe proviaiona M the Tenure of Office or any other law, he caunot plead Sther that he did it ignorantiy or by raiatake, because ig norance of the law excuses nobody, or that ho^ did it only from the best of motivea, and for the purpoae of bringing the queation of Its eificacy. or hia obligatiou to conform to It to a Icgil teat, even though he could prove the fact as he has raoBt signally failed to do in the case before you. The inotivefl of men, which are hidden away In their pwn breasttf, cannot generally be scrutinized or taken into the account where there ia a violation of the Ij^vy. ' / , An old Spanish proverb eaye that thero ija a place ijot to be named to ears polite, but which ie "paved with good in-^ tcntiona." If they or even bad advicea can be pleaded here- ^tei" in excuse for either neglect or violation of diity, it w^ill'be eoraethlug comijjhendable at \e&%p, and few tyrants will ever sufFcr for their crimes. If Andrew Johnaon could Sljad'in apology of hia owu diapenaation, with tho teat jath law, or any other feature of hi^i law-defying policy, that hia only aim wae to conciliate the Rebcle and facim tete the work of reconatrucfion. hia great exaraplar, whom he hia bo cloaely copied, the ill-advlaed -aiid headstrong SjiraeB II, raight equally have pleaded that he md the Sanie thiuge in the- interests of universal tblefauco. ^'he Engliah raonarch forfeited hie throne and dirfuheri- ted his heirs upon that caeo. It remaina tb be teen whether bur king is to fun out the parallel. I beg fo say, however, in thie connection, tbat I do not by any raeans,' admit that a case Uke this iato be tried or judged bythe rigid rules taffld nan'oW interception of the criminal courts. i U'here is no queation here of the life, or liberty, br pro perty erf tho delinquent. If ia a queetiou onlv of officiai aelinquencies, iu violatiou, however, of the life of a grea( tieople. If the defendant ia convicted he forfeite only his official place, and is^ perhnpa, diequalifiod from taking fpott hhutfulf any other, which will be no aevere infliction, suppose; unlc^H the Rebela them>'ulve8 ahould be eo fortu. nate aa to come once more into the posaeaaion of the go verument. and eo vt ork itae to truKt a man whp bad been ijr^'uc to them, and Who had honored tjiem so signallv ^'ho accueefB here are forty milliona of freemen ; the ao- pnsed but oue, who claims to bijthuli' master, and the isaue Is vvhether he shall be allowed to defy their will, uuder the pretext that lie can govern fhom more wisely than their iJpngreas, and to take the awnrd, and. in effect, the pijrae <^ the nation into his ovvh handa. On such an ieaiio and bcforfc such a tribunal, I should not havo hesitated to stand liijon the pltiin, nnvarnieluJd, untechnipal narfativQ of the ^ta, leaving the queetion as to'th'^ir effect upon tho Inte- "-^^ts of the nation and their bea-iug upon the fitueaa of * 'OW Juhiuon to hold tbe helm ofthe groat State to be t teats ( decided by stateumen instead of turning it over eithe* ify the quibblcfl of the lawyer or the aubtleties ot th<' caeulsV Ihaveno patienocfor the disquisitions of the apedSl pleader in a caae like thia. I take a broader view, one tuS I think is fully sustained by the authorities, and that 9 that in cases such as this the safety af the people whichll the supreme law. is the rule. That is the true rule and,™ only rule that ought to govern the same queation dUfffif the preaent Congress, I do not propose to argue that qneff tion 4ow, because it seems to me something very Uko>« aelf-evidentjproposition. , ~ ., , .i. . If Andrew Jonnspn. in tbe performance of the d^tieffof bis high office, hUs so demented himeelf aa to show that be is no respecter of the laws ; thait he denies the will of thoBe'who make tbem. and baa encouraged diaobed'' ence to tbeir beheata; thathe haa fostered dijaffcctHm and discontent throughout the lately revolted Statfea^ that he ie a standing obatacle to tlie restoration o^ -tm peace and tranquility of thia nation; that, be claims aui* afaerta the power of a dictator by holding oue ofyoii great departments in abeyance, and arrogates to bima~ the abaolute and uncontrollable right to remove or al pend at f^i mere will every executive officer of tlto KovernmenH'n. the land and on the. eeaa, aud to aiipp^p their places without vour agency--if for any or all Eflesft reasons, t^e republic is not longer eafe in hia hands, theo, before heavenjniid earth, aa the coneervatora of the natiouid weal, aa the truated guardiana ot its inqat valuable righta as the depoaitarieB of the moat aacred and exalted trust that has ever been placed in the hands of raan, it becontqi your high and solemn duty to see that the rppublie ahall take no detriment, and to apeak peace to a disturbed an4 suffering land by reraoving him fromthe truatahebas abused, and the omce he haa disgraced? , There are other pointa ip this caie on which I woti'Kl hare decided to comment, if time and atreugth had beea allowed rae for the purpose. It ia only within the lost fevf daya that I have entertaiued the hope that the Scnt^n would eo far relax its rule as to enable me to obtain whak under the the cIrcumBtaucea, ia at beiit but au imperf^j hearing; andl have feltit necessary, therefore, to couuni myeelf to the leading arguments connected with the se^ moval of the Secretary of War. ; I vris^h it to be understood, however, that I do not unde^ rate the value of such of the articles aa I have b^ obliged to pretermit. There is nothing in the wh'Ae pa^ I think, of graver import than the raeana adopted by MM President for overthrowing the legielative power by fpflWIJ ipg dieobcdienco to ita enactment^; aud bringing ite aet^ dited organ into disrepute. To this charge thtTC aretntqA anawers; the first is, the supposed constitutional xisa to the use of an unbridled tongue, which knows no ioIa ference between liceutiouanees and liberty ; tbe second; tM provocation aupposed tohave been offered in the languap used by ineinberB ofCongreaa in debate, in what aeeiMttt be forgotten to be its conatitutional rieht, which not onfr firotecte it from challeuge anywhere, but givcB it the rigSl reely to criticiae the piiblic conduct of the Preaident, orel whom the law has placed them, by making him amenabta to thera for all his errors, ae they are not to hlra^- ^3^> third is fhe harmless jest In tho suggestlon«of a law to t# gulatc the apoech and manners ot the Prosident. If hb couneel can;find food for mirth iu such a picture a^ibe evidence has shown, I have no quarrel wiih their taste.' The President may enjoy the jest, perhapa, himeelf. I do not think he cau afford it, but history InfonuBUS^thH "Nero fiddled while Kome wae burning."-i WhethurdW doea or not, Ijiowever, I truet that he will findaccnsjal such as Cato in the judicial opinion of thie bodv, that tM man who so outraged public daceucy, either in his publB or private character. In tue pursuit ofan oluect eo trsaedi able aa this, has demonatratcd hia unfitneas longer to ho] the high place pf a Chief Magiatrate of a free, intelUgei and moral people. I take leave of the unpalatable theme by remarking. tba| even tbe advocate of tho people himself muat feel, while m ia corapeUed, as a child of tho Republic, hiraaelf to aay thus much, thathe would rather turn his back, if it was poeeible, on euch arSpectaclc, aud throw a muntlo overtht nakednees tbat shdraos us all. , , i Aud uow, American Senators, Kopreaentatives ' and judges, upon thia raighty iaaue, joint heira yourselvcBof that great inheritance of liberty that has deecended to us all, and hae juat been ransomed and repurctiaaedhy a b» cond baptiara of blood, a few worda more -and I havedone, If the reeponai bilities of the lawver ace such aa to oppceap him with their weight, bow immeasurably greater nig your owu! The Houae of Representatives has. done ift dutv ; the reat ia uow with you. While I have a trust iu that God wbo went before oif bosta as he did before the armies bf Israel, throufih tfflS flery triala that led 30 many of the flower of our youth >t9. diataiit graves in Southern battle-fieldB, which hus nevej failed me. in tho darkest hour of the national agon v-. I canuot but realize that Ho haa placed the destiuie^ of t}i0 nation in your handa. Your decision here will either fjill npon the public heaii; like a gonial sunboam, or shea a diBastrOua twilight, full of gloouiioat portents of oomiag evil, over the laud. Say not. that I exaggerate the i.^aueo» overcnlor the picture. Thia, if it were true, would be an eiTor of much emnller consequence than the perilous mi* take of uridciTttting Ita importance. It K ludeod. but tjio, oaSa^trqpheot the great dram* which began three years ago with murder, the denou^ ment of the mpi'tal atrupglo- between the power that niak^ ' the lavy and tli;at vvliicb .executes ib. between tbe peoBl|i themaelvofi and the chief bf tlicfir Bcrvantc, wbo now iii^ dertakesto defy their will. Wbftt is your verdict toiffia' IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 2^ cttlfi? Go to the evldende aud to the answer of the Presl- flent hiraaelf, and they will give you the measure of the fnloresta involved. . . It it not a questioa only whether or not Andrew John- amie tobeallowedtoeerve as President of the United fitatce for Slie reiiiadiider of his term. It in the greater (prestion whether you shall hold ae law the power that thb Conj«tltution gives you, by aurrcnderlng the hlghur one to hbu ut Buapend'mg, dlBraiaaiug and appointing, at his will and pleaaure, every executive officer lu the government, from the highest to the ioweat, without your coupent, and, tf poaalDle, the Btill higher one of disregarding vonr laws for the purpose of putting those lawson trial before they can bo recognized. Ho has made- this issue with. you voluntarilv and dcfl- fSOm, If you acquit hira upon it. vou affirra all his im partial pretentione, and decide that no amount of ueurpa- ti-'n will ever bring a,Chief Magiatrate to juatice, because you will have laid down at hia feet you own hig:i dignity id;jhg with yonr d'Mibl' functions of Ingialatora und advf- Born, vvhich vvill be f jUjwed, of courco, by that of your other, I '.'.ill not aay greater, offico aa judges, iac \t will be a victory^ oyer you and us, wMch willgladdeu the heart of Rebellion with joy, while your dead coldicrB will tuirn uneaailv in their graves. A victory to be celebrated by the cxultaut ascent of Audrew Juhnson, likto the cou- gucror iua Roman triumph, dragging, not' captive kiuge, ut a captive Senate at his chariot whecle, aud to bo crowned by his re-entry into pos^uB-vion of that department of the government over which thia- great battle haa been fought. It is shown iu evideuce that he haa already inti mated that hewould watton your action here for that Durpose. ^ , , But ie thie all? I entreat you lay not to your bosoras tbe flhid delusion that' it wae all to end there. It is butthe bogluning, pf tlie end. If hia preteniions are-sitBtaiued, tho next head that will fail, as a propitiatory offering fJo the conquered Senateof wd'll be (that of the great chief who humbled the prido of the ehivalr.v by boating down ita eer- , ried battiLlions in the field,, and dragging its traitor stand-' ard to the dust, to be followed ov the returh of the' Rebel officeholdora, and a general convulplon of tho Btafcee, which ehall cost louse your Reconatruction lanvs, , and deliver over the whole theatre of paat disturbance to anarchy and ruin. Is this an exaggerntedpictutc? Look to the hietory of the past, and judg ' Speech of Manaffer Butler. Mr. BUTLER then read aa follows:— I beg leave to make a narration of facta, rendered'bfiW cfes^arv by what was said by Mr. Ncle'ou of the t o me^l m tShe President, in hi*? argument oh Friday last, contairiecB Op pages 888, 839. 800 of the record iu relation to the Hoif J, S. Black and the auppowCd connection of annie ot tma managere and meraberB of tho House iu regard to tlie ieland of Alta \'ela, Thie explanation becbttiCT neceaaary beciUae of the vGy' n anomalouB^courae taken bv the learned coun el ifi dueing in hia afgumeUt what ho calls a atateraeut of fuel not one of which would have been competent if ofiered fii evidence, and upon whieh Ho, founded au attack iipnu a gentleman, uot preaent, and from wbick he deduces IiW sinuationainjiiriouB to aome of the managers aud othdf geu tlemen, membera of tho Houae of Repreeentativea, w]io are not partiea to the iasuo here, and who have no opporttt nity to be heard. Tho learned counsel wai atrennous fu the argument to prove that this was a court, and ita r^ ceedings were to be euch only as are had in judicial tribV^ nalij, he, thetofore, ought to have couijtraiued himself, ai least, to act in accordance with hia theory. The veriest tyro in the law iu the most benighted posi tion of the Southern country, ought to kno^, that iu np court, however rude and humble, would ah attack be jA lowed upon tho absent, or couuael engaged In a cause,upoa a stateraeut of pretended facts, unsupported by oaths, ui^ alfted by croaa-oxaraiuatiou, and vvhich thoae tb be atfectoa by them had uo opportunity to verify or to dispute. Ai'aa extracting the detail of a document stjut by hia client ro the Seuate, the counsel proceeds In relatiou to a dispujffl concerning the island of Alta Vela as follows:— According to the beet information I can obtain, I statOk that on the 9th of March. 1868, General B. P. Butler ad^ dreaeed a letter to J. W. Shaffer, in vvhich he etated thk* ¦ he waa clearly of opinion that under th,e claim of tfto United Statea, ita citizens had the exclusive right to talce gUano there, and thathe hAd never been able to. under staud why, the Executive did not long since assert tflo righta of the govermn6nt, and suatain the rightful claiiM of it^ citizens to the poeseaaion of the Island, in the uioji forcible manner coiisiBterit vvith the dignity and honor of the nation. Thie letter was concurred in aud approved of by John M Logan, John A'. Qarheild, W.' H'. Koontz, J. K. Moorheai^ Thaddeus StQvena, J. G, Blaine ^ud John A. Binghaiiv Op the saine da^' bf March,, ISm, the letter expreaalng tj^ opinion of Generala Butler, Logan and Garfield^ was placed in the hands of the President by Chauncev F. Black, who, on the 16th of March, 1868, addreeaed a letter to him in "^hich ho inclosed a copy of the same with tho eonciwfr rence of Thaddeue Stevens, John A. Binghara, J. (^ Blaine, J. K. Moorhead and Williahi H. Koontz. After the date of thL^ letter, and whilo Judge Black wns counsel fqr the rcepondput In thia cause, he had an Inter- vievv with the President, in wlidch hq urged iuiraediaie action. bu hia part, apd tho Beii^Iiig an uruied veaael to take t>"Bi the bci^t iuforniatlon I can obtain. So far aa the President is concerned, "the; head and front of his olTendipg hath this extent, no more,.','. It la not neccrt^ary to any purpowa that I should cen^^ure Judge Blaek, or make any reflection upou .or imputation against any of thfi boOorablo managera. The laland of Alta Ycla or the claira for damages, ia BoJFd to ainountin value to mOru than a million dollara, and itia quite likely that an extensive apeculatlon ie on fo<.t. I have i\6 reaeon to chiirge that auy of tho managers aro e» gaged Iu it. and I preeumc that the letters were aigned as euch comin uhlcatiouB are often aigued by membere of Coi> grcHB, thrOfigh the iraportiiuity of frienda. Judge Black, no doitht, thought it'wae hi." duty to other clicnta to press tbi-i clfiiu), but how did the President view' it? Thcrtj are two or three facte to whicli I deaire to call the attenthm of tho Senate and the .country in connoeti in withthoan recoramendatlona. TheV are, first, that they were all gotten up after this impeachment proceeding u-aa Commenced against the President of the United Stat*^ Keep the dates in miud and yoii « III see tbat such ia i&e fact. Every ouo of thera vvas gofton np after thia i!npeac&- nieut proceeding waa commenced. It cannot fail to be evi- df^nt that, vvhile the counsel diaclalma auy iuiput.ition cither upon Judge Black Or the raanjigers, in Worda, he so etate8,what he claima to bp the facts ga to couyey the vnry i^nputation 'discl-airaed. Therefore it ia that! have fea called upon to notlcb tlio insinuated calumny . My peraonal knowledge of raatters connected vvith the leland of AUa "Vel^i ia very limited. ' Sometime in the huj^ mor of 1867, being iii waitin? ou other buainosa in the 0(13© of the Attorney-General (Mr. Stanbery), 1 was preaent a* an argument by Judge Black in behalf ofthe American citizena claiming an intere-'it in that island. I there, for the fil'St tirae, learned the facta argned and in dispute cOi> ^ cerning-it, by listening to and Incidentally taking a parK or being appealed to in the diBcueaiou, In February l«^ my attentiou was uext drawn to tlie matter of the spoli* fion arid imprisonment of Araerican citizena upon t\w lai.-vnd of Alta 'Vela, by inquirv of ii pcrsouftl friend,' Cbl*. bel Sh*ffcr, if I h.ad any acqiaintanco with tho queation, and If fO, would give huu my opinion, as a lawyer, upon the merits of the controveray, to serve a friend, Simplg upon recollection of the discussion with the Atfomea General I cave him auch *'o union," tfie rough di aft cff which I hold in my handt which is without dute, apd IMPEA.CHMlfTf::T OF ANDREW JOHNSON. riich, being copied, I digued and placed in hie hand. T-his believetu-^have been in the eail.y*'' Part of February. L.ertainlv before the act waa committed by Andrew John son whicll brought on hia irapeachment. ,_,. , ^ ¦ ' Frum that timo until, I saw nay "btunion" publiahed in ¦'fh'o New York Herald, purporting to corae from President ¦' Johnpon, I never saw or conimuiucated with either ot tne fehtlemen whoae iiames appear In the connsel'e statement ttached thereto, in, auy raanner, directly or indirectly, in Tcgardtd it, or the subject matter of it; or the Mand ol Alta Vel^, or tlie claims of any person arising oUt ot it or nccause ofit. , . , , , «. T'hiia far I am able to apeak of my owu knowledge. Since. 'the etateiuent of the coiinHel. according to the best mtor- nmtiou he can obtain, I have made inquiry, and from the ^Tjcat information I can obtain, lind the facta to be as loi- "IOwb:— That aoon jifter the "opinion" wae eigned, Oolonel " BhalTcr aeked the Hon. John A. Logan to examine the Bitinc queation preaented him, hia brief of the fii eta, and - aeked niui if he could concur in the opinion, M'h>-h, after ^ examination, Mr. Logan conaented to do. and sign p dme ' original paper, aigned by myeelf. I may here remark, that ¦'"the recollfctiou of General Logan and Colonel bhatter 'Concur ^vith my own. aa to the time of theee tran:--aetion8. Ihave learned and believed, that my '•opinion." jv'ith the signature of General Logan attached, was jlacod m tUe Ijanda of Chauncey F. Black. Esq., and by Turn iiandcd to ¦«iePreRidBut.of the Uuited States, with other p^ipera ou - file caee. » ' i. - - ^ ., a j>i. -' Mr. Black made a copy of my "opinion," and after- ¦ Wards, at hi? convenience, procured a member of Con- f-ees, a personal friend of Iiih, one of the Higner^ to get le namea of other members of Gonerees, two of yphom appcued to be mnnapers of the impeachment. Thia waa done by a eeparate application to each, withont auy con cert of action whatever, or knowledge or beliei that the papers were to be uaed In auy way, pr tor auy pnrnoee othor than the expreesiou of their opinion^ on the subject- ' matter. Thia cony of my opinion, m hen,3o,tigucd. vv iva a very considerable time after the original give;! to the Pre- ¦ I des'ire, further, to declnre that I have no knowledge of eft- interest directly, or indirectly, in any claim whatever ariaing in any manner out of the island ot Alta Vela, other thau as above etated. In justice to the other gentlenteu who signed the copy of the paper. I desire to annex here, ¦ to flie affidavite of Ghauneey F. Black, Eaa,, au,d Colonel ¦- J. W. Shafter, showing that neither of tne gentlemen signing the naper had any interest or concern m the sub- iect-niatter thereof, other thau as above set forth. ' While I acquit the learned counsel of ariy intentional aieity of etatement, aa he makea it to ms **best informa- -tjon,''* which muat have beeu obtained from and eent to Mr. Johneon, tho Btatement itpelf contains every ele ment ftf falsehood, being both the supirrensio ueri and the mnju^stio falsi, iu that it saya that on the 9th of Mareh, ' General Benjamin F. Butler addresfed a letter to J'. W. Shaffer, and thia letter waa concurred in and approved gf bv John A. Logan, J. A. Garheld, W. H. Koontz, J. K. ' Moorhead, Thaddeus Stevens, and John A. Binghim, on ' the same day. 9th of March, 18e8, vvhen the Prosident knew (thatthe names of the five laat mentioned gentleraen were irocured on a copy ofthe letter long after the original wae u hie handa. , Again, there ie another delibdrafo falsehood m the thrice reiterated Btittenieut that the algnaturoe were procured and eent to him for the purpoee of intimidating nim iuto doing in act after he wae impeached, the propriety and legality of wliich waa contrary to hia judgment, when, iu truth and in fact, the aignaturee were procured and eent to him iu order, aa he averred, tc austain' him In doing what he himself declared waa juet aud legal in the pre- niec!:'. aud which he intended todo. The u^e made of • tliL'fe T)apersis charjvcteriatic of Andrevv ' Joliueon, who ?.ei aTv raisee questiona of veracity with both fiiend and be witl. whom he domea in contact. 'T, Ch4uncey F, Black, Attorney and Counseller at Law, do depobe and aay that the law lirm of Blaek, Lamon & Go., liave beeu counsellera for years ori the behalf of Pat terson Ar. Marquendo. to recover their rights in the guano ditcc'vcred by them in the leland of Alia Vela, of whieh tlu-v h!\d been deprived bytforce, and the Impririonraent of their agent"! by eorae of the inhabitants of Dominica; and ¦ as such couneel a\ e have argued the cause to the Secretary ¦ of State and aleo the President, before vVbom tho questiou "^liaB beeu pending fiince Jiilv 19, 18fi7. " "We have in varioua forms pressed the matter upon his attention, and he hae expreeaed himself aa fully aud fioely satiafied with the justice of tlie claiins uf our clieuta, aud ht conviction of hia owu duty to fltford the deaired n lief, out had declined to ait bccaiiBe I'lf^the opposition ofthe Secretary of State. General J. W. bhuffer haviug bRcomc iussociatcd with the United Statea iu thecaae, andhavinp learned that General Butler had becoiue acquainted with , tue merite of th'e case, prociii-ed hie IsgaJ opinion upon it. ai.d also H concurrcnce^by Genoral Loj^au. After receiving thi^j opiuiou I inclosed it to the Pru-rideut 'ihe time \vhen this opinion waa read, and vv hether it waa dated. I do no: rceoUect. The time it waa pri;f-onted to the I'resid'-ut by mei can be established by tlio date of Uiy letter encloii- ' Ing it. ¦" "Leaming from a mutual friend that It wo'ild be desirable ibr thu ['resident to receive the rvco'um'tndiui .us of uthe; ''lueiuln ra ¦ if (Jongreaa, 1 carried a copy of the opiuiou to tlie House 01 Kepreaeuf ative* and procured the aiguaturcs of seme of my peraonal fiiendrJ, and a^ked theni to procurt- the siguaturoB of others, "'iiic'i w ere attached to tl^e copy, /feuttic eouridcrablc tjnio after I hnd lor.var.li'tl tlK*^l)!:fJ;iual ,1 tent this copy, aigned, to the I'rcahlctiL These ^igi^fttUTe.. K were procured upon per?onal.aippI>catiou tn the gentlMjKj I^verallv, Hithoiit .iny concertof aotion whatever on thefi paXTiud withont any reference to any proeeeding then pending, or flic then present action ot Congress, m regard to thi! Prosident whatever. • ir„i„ t i,„™i,-™ "From inv relation to the case of Alta vela I have knom ledge of airthe rights andiIltore^tB in it. or in rulatioata it to that I am certain that neither of the geutleini'B,n-ti» signed the paper or copy, have any interest in the claim o* matter in dispute, or in anv part thereof, or ariaing fhei> from in anv manner, directly or indirectly, or contmgenl, and that all averment to the contrary from any eouww "¦"^"(Signcdr'™""'^'"''' •'CHAUNCEY F. BLACK." Sworn and anhscribed before me thfs 28th da^ of April A. D., 1868. (Signed) N CALIBAN. Cteal]. Notary Public. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the fac-ta.'fsoiiK tained iu the above aflidavft are true iu everoartjftii hir (Signed) J. W. bHAFi KU." I Sworn and aubFcribed before me, the 28th Aay of Apill, A. D., 1868. (Signed) , ^: LALhAS (Stamp.) Notary Publle. "" Mr NELSON— Mr. Chief Jnstice and SemitoA :— Ton have heard the statement of the honorable nianagBriu*- dreaeed to you, which I deem will jiiB':ity a statement from me. The honorable gentlemauspeake— i The Chief Justice interniptiug:— ^ The counsel cau proceed by unanimoua coneent, Mr. NELSON.— I beg pardon of the Chief JiiatiCe. I inferred from the alienee th.-a Senators were willing tohfiaT rae; the honorable gentleraan apeaks ae to what he aftih. pOasBto be-the k©ovvledge\and duty of a tyro iu thelaw* and aulmadvcrte with aoinC severity upon the introduction of thia foreign subject by me, iu the courscof thiabivestifea. tion. ¦ ' '^ Ibfg leave to remind the honorable Senators, that,.BO''Kr aei ara concerned, I did not introduce that copy Williipm having, as I believed, juet cauf^e and just reason to aft'Bj and uliatcvermav be the gentleman's views In regaFa'fo a tvro In tho legal profeseion,! beg leave to say to hiffifaud the Senate, that I have never seen the day inmylif^^oS from the earlieat moment when my license was signed dov\-n to the preaent time, when a client waa assailed, Slid aa I believed, unjustly, that I did not feelit rayvew highest profeaalonal duty on tho fabe of the earth, to vindi. cate and defend him against tbe aaeaaein. ' My vIevi-8 may be, and probably are, different from ,t^ vIewB of the honorable manager and othera, aud if wit* out casting any reflection upon ray aaaociatea—if the duty had not devolved upon me to conduct the dnveBtigatioii or this case; if it had not devolved upon thoae or higiicr Btanding in the profeasion than myself, I would have Diet the gentleman in every caae where he has raade hia asBaiilta upon the Preeident ot tiie- United Statea. i would have anewered him frara time to time aa these chargna ivew made, and I would uot have permitted one of them to sb unauawered, ao far aa an answer could be mado on ;ous aide; uud when the honorable gentlefuan who cloepjd the argument., so-far aa it had progreeaed (Mr. Bojitn'till) at the time he Addreaaed the Senate on' the other aidp, Bavv fit to draw; in dark and gloomy colors, the pictures of tlM Preaident of the Uuited States tinder the influence whicn he hild over hia Cabinet; wheuhe aaw fit to rcpreaeilt thera as aerfa, obedient to the control of their maater, aud to make alluaion to tho withdravval of Judge Blafik, I deeiued tliat a fit aud proper occasion— -and bo conaideilng jt, upon the raost calm and m.ature refiection, I, ae onp pi the counael, for the Preaident, having the information la ray posseBsIon- to meet and answer it and nail it to the counter, and think I have dono ao BUficesefully. , Y.OU' all know, and. If need be, I can hunt up the Jje^'f .papers and f urnleh the teatimony, that when Judge BkcK retired from the President's case, it was piihllHhL'd in newspapers. hostile to the President that Judge Blfick^ eee- ing that the Preeident'a case was desperate, fie had witlir drawn frdm it in disgust; and the very highest profei- sional duty devolved upon me, vvhen this iuipu'tatlrtftwrtfl contained in the address of thu honorable lUana^er^aud alluded to iuthe connection in which it waa, to vindicftta ' the Preeideut of the tinitcd Statea frora tm. appcreioua which had been made upou him, nnd it was for fiiat rea son, and for no other, and' not with anv deriro to inakfl any aaaaulta upon the manager, and while I treated theiu srith civility, with kinduesH, and, aa I think, with j'ery great forbearance, the honorable gontleuian haa mude inv- -"itfttions imnn mo to-dnv which I hurl back with sooilit as undeBerved imputations. ' iUo.itedUuu v.ith cuurtoay and kindnesa. apd ho luw icvvardedme with outi'agein tho proponeoof thoAi»ei> can Sonate, and it will be for you. Senaturs, to jiifj^ whoae demeanor haa been proper, that of 'the hononv'jg inanagei-, who fouUv and faW-ly makes in."iuiian(m9 against rae for my course iu viudicjitlng the ProHidentof the United States in the di.icharge -f mv profofsionftl duty here.. So far aa any qneisliun which the gentlt'imm desire*- io imake rif a personal ch-iractor with me is eort cerned. thie is not tiie place lo make it. Let him make » leewhcre if he dctfirotf to makc'it, = . S^f-'Htci- YATES, at this point, rose and called tho coua- sel to order. .^ -Mr. AELSON-Mr. Chief Justice and Sonatnra;-! win f'udeavor to comply viith the auggeatiou of thb Senator, l do not vvif-h to wiakc Use of any improper lauguage iu tbu tribunal, ^ut 1 hope the Senators will pardon uie for au- -vveii.;g the rcmai-kt- ef the houorable raailugor on the ther i-ide. AVhat I di-.*ircd to fay" to yon, Sonatora,'flna lilch ia much i^uie impoi'tant than anything clBCtU IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. ^1 ens '.-When I made the statement which I did aubmit to Uie Senate, I ma^de it with a full knowledge, as I beHeved, M what I was ^oing. It may be possible that I may havo cpramitted an error, aa tb the dale of tho paper which was glgued by Meeer:*. Logan aud the othor managere. It raay be poeaible I took it for grauted that it bore the Same date , that It waa eigned, on the same day, the 9th of March, that waanjentioncdby the honorable gentleraan; but thsft Ift an immaterial error, if it bc ouo. Ihad th6 letj.er in my poBaeasion ou the day I addrepaed you, and if the gentleman had seen tit to deny anv state ment contained iu thoae letters on that day, I ha~d them hpre ready to read to the Senate. I had no expectation &at thifl Bubject.would be called up to-dav, until tno honor- ffltle geutlemap told me duriug your adjournment of a fow flmiutea. I have aent for the lettera. I wae fearful, how ever, that they would not lie here iu time to read them Ipnv, and If it becomea necessary, I ehall aak leave to read Snem to-raorrow, before ray aeaociate reeumce his argu- Ibont.'^% shall ask leave of the Senate, ae this topic is introduced V^ the gentleman iu terma of censure of mo, to allow me lo read thoae fettcrti. Why did I introduce thoae lettera bore at all ini- vindlcafcioa of tho imprifati-'u that waa grade against Judge Black? It vvaa for the purpose of ;ioiving thatthe Preaident of the United Statee had been ^acediu.adilerama auch ae no man under accuaatiou has Rver been placed iu before, the purpo.ie of ahowing that ao far aa that correapondeuec Ib concerned, it was a corree- , pondence which arose after the articles of irapeachment had been agreed upou, aud published after they had been MJerred to the Senate. . ,¦ v , It was for that purpoa© tbat I introduced the correa- pOhdence, and it haa excited, and awakened, andaroueed the attention of this wholenatloii, tlmt the couueel for the preaidont of the United States should abandon hlacftuee, add that tho true eeoret of that abandonment has not gfowu; oufi pf any insult that tho Preaident of tho United States ^rgudered to tho couneel, out of anyiujury that ho Bid to him, but out of the fact that a claira was piViwod. A'll believe- Bttonger than I did the other day, and I Will answer for it here or anywhere elae, I believe that .pudge, Black acted, improperly under the cIrcnmBtaiicee, fai withdrawing his aervicea from the Preeident of the ¦,'IInited States. Here is thia accusartion preaented agaiuat ^mm. and here is this aatonishing claim presented to htm; ,du^6dby four of tho managere of the impeachment: pre- !-i^tcd at an extraordinary^ period of time; presented fien this impeachraevt waif hanging over hira; and jnaiiitaiu that I had a right— .that it wan my bounden fluty i^ vindicate — , ., jj/sar. BUTLEU— Does tbe gentleman know what be ia SKflng— that 9. claim was aigned hy themanagors? / ..j^r.^ELSQN— lmeant to eay letter, not claira. I may mtve used some word that 'I did uot iuteud to nae. What : lmeant to aay ia this :— That a letter vvob iu the iirat in- f>,nance signed by the honorable manager. General Butier; fliat there was au indorsemont of that letter by three .ether membera of the Houee of Repreaentativea. who are . nuiuagera In thia caae ; that this letter aud the ludoraement of it.had relation to the Alta Vela claira ;. thatthe subject Waa brought to the conaideration of the Preaident of. tho Hnited StatcB pondiug this impeachment, and that '^^Wbether the letter waa aigned on thq 9th of March, or at a '^ teter period, ia wholly iraraaterial. It was aigned after ¦ inia impeachment pcoceediug wae commenced, ond -Judge *'liSick endeavored to get the attention~of the Pre^idont to ' the claim, and to have hiiu decide upon it.^ aa I am now in formed and believe, though I have no writtea evidence of that fact, to decide thia claim, and urged it upon hira after thia irapeachment cnmraenCcd, aud after .Judge Black had . met some of the other counaejl, uot myaelf, in the council .^amber of the Pi-eaident. . . , ; 1 was not preaent at that time, but I havo It from tbe Hps of the "PrGsident, and I believe it to be truoj that Judge Buck ni'ged upon him the docirtiou of this claim, and hia afaawer wjis, that he did uot think it a proper time for him to act upon tho claim, because CongreBs was in:eGe- eion, and aBked if itwasri^ht ahd propor for a veaael to ' bo sent down there for any act .of public hoatilitv? The rroridcnt of the United States answered Judge Black, aa ani iuformed and bellieve, by telling hira that Congress wna iu ses«on. ana b_y aeking him to call upon Congrese to Bay's anv law that might be Uecc sary. Vrpneral BUTLEU made a remark luaudlble to the gal- llr. NELSON— If the gentleman thinks I am caiTving the matter too far, rwill relieve hfrn by saying I have eaid as uiuch as I de.'^Iru to fia.y ; I vvill ask permiBtfion, when I fctfeive thope letters, to read them. Sjuator EDM L'NDS then »roac and a=iked that the, rules be pTiforcc'd, eaviUg that the discuasaoa vas out of - order. ' Jlr. LOGtAN- Mr.' PreBident, I would li'^e tci sayone ' wprd. ¦ - Chief Juetiee— If thereirfno objection the gentleman can tttihQcd. ¦ Mr. LOGAN— I merely wirl? to correct the Btatement of thb counael for the roepoudcnt, by saying that he la mis taken about this letter having been riguud, aftor any of thd impcachraent procecdiags had beci* commcncod, by ' Gwicral Butler or myself. ' I kaoW w-cU when I aigned. 1 iJiipe the gentleman will make tho con-ection. , Mr;NEL&ON,— I will sav vvith'^grqat pleaaure that I had iKi dfsign to raiarepfoftcnt any gcntluman concerned in tbe .'coen In order that the raatterfliay be dceidod, Imny have fallen into an error, but my understaniins v*-as that it vva-s aflerthe proceedinga were comraonotfd. bat to obviate all dtHcnltvI will prortucfi the letter, Ko^ matter whe.thur I ¦ am miFtnkon or not. I #ill bring it lu fmrn.-r4-'to tho Senate. Vhuf il all tbe gbuticmnn can Ui^, I am auro. speech of Mr. Evarts. Mr. EVARTS then spoke as follows:- Mr. Lhief Justice nnd Senatora ;— I am 8ur6 that no OOB- BCieutioua man woiijid wish to take anv pari; in the apleniu traneactione which engage our attention fb-day. unless held to it by something notinconslBteUt with bie obligatiou ¦of duty. Even if we were at liberty to confine ouraoUc*- tuuea within the horizon Of politics; even if the interests of the country and of tJie party In power, duty to the country and dutyto tbe partem power, aeia aoraetiiUea thp case, and aa public men very eaaily persuade thehi- BClveais or may be the caae in any juncture, were cont- mouaurate and eqiilva^lent, who will provide a ehart or coinpass for the wide, uncertain sea wliich lies before ua In the immediate future?' Who ahall determine tbe currents which ahall follow from the event of thia stupendous political conti-6ver=«v? Who raeasure thb force and who assume to control tho storm? But If we enlarge the scope of our rcBponalbllitiea and of our viaion, and take In the great eubjecta that haye bcien constantly preaung ou our miud, who ie there eo aa- gacioua In human alfalre, who ao confident of hif= capacity, who so clreumapect of treading among grave responeibili- tiefl,andt:o assured of his circumapection, w^ho so bold lu ma forecast of the future, and ao approved in hia judg»* ment, aa to aee clearly the end of thia griat conteat? Let ua be sure then that no man ehall be here ae a '^oluD- teer, or shall lift hia finger to joatle the etrugglers iu the conteat between the great forces of our aoverhijieut, of which contest we are vvitneaaea, iu which we take part, and which we. in our several vocatione, arc to aeaiHtln determiniug ofthe abi^olute and complete obligation which couvenea the Chief Justice of the United StWea p.nd tlw Senatora iu the court, for the trhil of tlila IinpcachraeUl. Of ite authentic derivation from the Conatitutiou there can be nodoubt ; eo too of the authoritv of the honorable niani*- gers and their preaence. and the attendanco of the Hou&o of Keprei*eutatlvea itself, in aid of their argument aud of their appeal. ^ There ia little doubt the Preaidont of the United Stfttee ia here in eubtnireion to the eame Conatitution, and ih obe dience to it, aiid in obedience to the dnty which he owes by the obli^al;iOuB which he haa assumed to prgaerye, pro tect and defend the CoUatitutiou. The rightof thePresi dent to appear by couneel of his choice, makes It as clear under the obligatioun of a meraber of the profeasion, and under the duty of a citizon of a free State, who haa aworn fidelity to the Conatitution and the laws, that he ehaU at tend upon hiadefeuso. N 0 mau oan be farailiar with tho course of the struWle of lavy aud libortj" iu the world, without knowing thht the defenee of the accused becomes the trial of the Cou Btitution, and, the protection of tlie coraraon aaik.'ty. It is neither by a careless nor capricioUa diatribution of servicea to tho. Stale, that divides them among tbqea who raanage political candidaciea, among those who d^ fend tho accuaed, aud auyang those vvho, in the Senate, deterraiue the grave isaues ot peace and war, and all the buaineas of the Stato. It is frora facta and in-'tancert th>^ E eople are taught their conatitution and the law, and it'is y facts and inatances, that theso laws aud constitutions are upheld and improved. Conetitutiona are fraraed laws, eetabliahed institutions built up, and the proceea of eociety goos on, until at length by pome oppm-ing, p-orae corapeting, aome contending forces in the States, aniudividualis broughtto a point of oolli- eion, )iud the cbjuds, surcharged vvith the great forces of public welfare, burst over his head. It ietlien that he who defends the accused, in the language of Cicero, mid in open recognition of the frequent ih«tance8 'Iu Euzli-h and Araerican hiatory, is held to a diatinguished public duty. , As this duty haa brought ns all here to thie augnat proce edure. and haa aaaigued to each his nartinit, eo through all ite reepon Ed bill ties to the end we must surrender our£elveB to ita guidance. The conati tutional procedure of impeachment, in our hietory as a nation, hae really vouched nouo of the gi-avo intorestSithatare involved lin th'e preaent trial. Starting from tho firat occaeion in which it was movcd^ tbeing ag-ilnst a meraber of fho Benate. it decided nothing import.. ant, politically or judicially, except that a member of this body was uot an officer imdcr the United States. The neSct trial, agaiuat Juds:e Ficboring, partook of no qualitioij ex- cept^pcreonal delinquency or raiefortunc, and ite result gavcw nothing to be proud of, and gave to tho constitu tional law no precedent, except that an insane raan may be cpnyleted of 'crime by afwty vote In the last trial, of Judge Humphreys, there waa no dte- feuse,'aud the matters 01 -accusation were ao plain and clear that it waa iSnderatood by the accused and tho aocn- Bcra aud the oourbto be a raere fonhality. I'hat loaves us uo trials of interest except those of Judgo Cha^e and Judge Peck. ,- - , 1 ¦¦ ¦ . Neither of those ever went bqyond the gravity of a for mal and solemn accuBation of raen hnldlug di3;uifi*'d, va- luable, eminent public judicitul truate, and their determi- .jsiatiou iu favor of the accuaed, leaving nothing to be illus trated by their triala-oxcept thait eveu whfeu the matter fu imputation and under inveBtigution ia a peraonal f lult, uud raisconduct iu oflice, politici* will forco tbemaelvod into tho What ia the question hero? Why, Mr. Chief Juetiee and Senators all tho political power of tho L'nitod States of Auierioa is hero; tho Houae of Kep^erfontati^¦e3 is hero ac an aecuerr ; the President of tho Umttiil rtraco.* i? here aa the acciiSRd,, aud tho Senate of tho United ?:it;ito.s is hero AK the court to try him, proaided ovfir by thi^ Oijii'f Ju.ttice, under a fpecinl conetitutioual pro/ision. 'I'hcfto po-vrr of our govcrmueut are uot bore tor concord of uctioii in uny 232 IMPEACHMEN»f Of Jn^DR^i^ SOWli^iOl^. of the dutiee assigned totAfe ^vcd^ttfifetit in the conduct of thoaft'aira of the natiqpt but t^ey , are herein « Struggle and contest as to wfijch oUe of theni aliall bo raade to bow, 'Vy virtue of constitutional authority.to the other. , Clime and violence have put portion? of our political government at aoinc diSiadvantage ; the crime and violence of the Rebelliou has deprived thia House of Repreaeuta- tivee and this Senate of the full attendanco of raembera, which will rhake up the body, under the Couhititution of the United Statos, vvhen it shall havo boon fullv re-eatab- liebea over the whole country; the crime of violence and of aaaafaination has put the Executive office in the laet ptage of constitutional authority: there Ie no conatitution- allv-elected siicceBsor of the President of the Uuited Statea ; and you have noiv before vou a raatter I ehall call your at- tcntii u to, not intending to pxhibit here the diacusaion of couatitntiqnal vieity^ and doctrines, but simply tho reault to the government and flie counti-y which muat follow from yourjiidginbnt. \, v w ¦ If vou shall actfuit tbe Presidont of the UnIted.,State8 .of this accuaatiou, aH things will bb ae they were before ; tho ' House of Representa tves will retire to discharge its usual ¦ duties In legialation, and you, will remain to act with itiu those duties, and to divide vvith the President the othpr , a8.=»ociate dutiea of au executive character which thff Con stitutiou has confided to vou. The Preeident, if freed from this accusatiou, will occupy through the conatitutional term hia place of authority, aud, whatever course of politica may follow, the govern- mentaudlta Constitution will have received no shock; butif thePreaident ehould bo condemned, and if b.v tho authority of the Conatltutic^n necessary to be oxercleed on condemnation, he shall be removed from office, there will be uo Preaident of the United Statee, for that name and titliiiB conceded by the Conatitution to no man who haa not received the euffrage of the people for the primary and alteruativc gift of that office. A new thing will occur,, the duties ofi the. offioe will attach/ to some other officer, and be dlschsyr^ed, by him tbrouglrthe term which belonga to thC' .first omeor. The preaiding officer of the Senate, will have to. add to tho office, conferred on him bythe Senate« the . peribrm- auce of the dutiee of President of the United States, and aud whatever there raay be in the course of public affaire, it wiu result from tho anomalous situation which ia In volved in the deterinluatlon of thh case ; a-nd therefore, you have directly proposed to yoiij aa a necessary result of one deterraination, tbis^ novelty In our Conatitutibu, A great nationi whoae whole form of governraent, whose whole scherae and theory of politicB rests upon the suftVa- ges of the people, will be without a l^reaident, and the office sequestered will be dlBehftrgcd tiy a meraber Ot the body whose judgment has aequeetored' iti I need not direct your attention— long since called to it, doubtless^ and made raore familiar, by yoirr reflections, to you than it Ib to me— to the resulte that will tollow from the exer cise of theae dutiea, and you will see at once that the situa tion, from circumetaucea for which uo man is reaponaible, is such as to bring iuto the gravest poBSible couBequencea the act which you are to pel-form. If "the President ¦ of tho United Statoa, elected by the people, aud having standiug behind hira the second o Ticer of the people'* choice* wereon tri.il, uo such disturbance or confusion of constitutional duties, and no euch shock upon the feelings and traditions of tho people would affect . US, but as I have Bi/id, crime and violence, for which none of the agents of the governmuut are responsible, have brought us to this situation. . Now it would seera that as thia trial brings the legisla tive power of the goverument, confronted with the execu tive authority, and Ita result isto deprive the nation of a Presidentof the United Statee, and to place the office in*the Senate, it is a trial of the Constitution over the head and in tlifi person of the Chief Magiatrate who now fills the great office. The forces of thia coute--;t are gathered and this is tlie trial of tho Conatitution, and neither the dignity of the great office which ho holds, nor anv personal interest that may be felt in ono so bigh 'in atati on, northe great name and force of this exureiae, the ^e House of Representatives speaking for all the people of the United States, nor the august composition of this tribunal, which bringB together fhe ChiefJustice ofthe treat court of tho eonntry and the Senatora who have tatcB for their constltuenta— which roeallstous Umi com bined splendors of Roman and EngUsh jurleprud^e and power— not even this apectaclo tonne any importao'li part of the watchful solicitudo with wliich the people of thei couutry are gazing on tijiis procedure. Thesober thought <^ the people ot the counti^yia never afiected by pagcaut^.wbeuthby cover real issues and inter ests the people aro thinking on far greater thiuRS thau those. Wby, Mr. Chief Justice, it isbut a fow days eince the groat tribunal in vvhich you hahituallv preside, whore tho law speaks with authority fbr the whole united States, adjourned, embracing as it does, tbe groat provinces of iutcruafiontd law, tho great respouaibility of judging be tween the States and the General Government, the coU- fliotlug interests and paesions belonging to our composite ayatem, and of deterraining the limits of the co-ordinate brandies of the government. There ie one other duty assigned to it iu which the sople of the country feel a nearer and debper interest, [t is as tho guardians of the Bill of Rights of the Oqusti- tution. OS the watchful protectors of the liberties of the people againat tho eueroacbraoutB of law and governuTBut, tliat the people look to the Suprerae Court with tho great- eat honor aud greatest affection. That court having before it a subject touching tho Uberty of the citi7:ens, finds the hai;^tiiugB of ita endeavor ajua of ite energy to interpose PC' It: ' the- power of the Couatitution' in protection of tbe ctttzeA^ cut by the sharp edge of a Congreael.mal enactmcut, ana iu-ifB breast, carries awnV from (fhe judgment, the CoubQ. tutiob and law^ to be deterrained, if ever, at -aome futulfe time aud under some happier circumatantieB',' " ¦ Now,< In reference to this matter, the people pf fl (KJuited Statea givff grave attention. They 'exerciae jihu flupervieion of the conduct of all their rigents, of VT*n4fi in any foriu and ' in any capacity, aid lu any lilarost* they nave not yet ICRrned to be afraid. The people oftm country have had nothing in their experience of tlielsit aix yeara to make thera rear an.ybodj*', anybody's oppv^ sion, anybody's encroaehment, anybody's aaaauJts, any. body's violence, anybody's vvar. Masters of this Couttfe*, and masters of every agCut and agency In itj they bow » nothiug but the Conatitiitlun, and they honor eV&ty publte servant who bows to the Constitution. At the aame time, by the action of the same CoUghm the people see the Preeident of the United States bfourfi; as a criminal to your bar, accused by ono br^uchof C& gresa, to be tried by the other ; his dmce, aa X hate said, jo be putin commiaaion, and au election ordbred. Notv, fie greatlv raistakea who supposes thai the attachment of tie peoplg of the United States to the office of President, il^d the great name and power which representa them iu tl^r collective capacity, in their united 'poweT" aUd in thair combined intereets. Is less thau tlieir attachment to way'ii tho dther departraents of thia goverum ent. -'- ' *'-^ The Preeideut ia, in the honor and in the eustonS'ef'ffio the people of the Uuited Statee, the Magistrate rj™j authority for which, they have that hoihage', thaw¥o» spect which belougs to the elective office. His omhj office ia as farailiar to the people in this country as itiiar you, for they havo heard it during the perilous period; the war from the lips wliich thev revered ; arid they U Been its Iramense power under tbe reeourbei) of this^ atitution, and supported by their fidelity to malUt^i^J^ contest of this governraent against all our'foes.tO aii the Gonetitutiou and laws. ' ' ,.,.'' It has been spoken of here aa if the Preaident*^ oathji — tbe oath to discharge'faithfuUy the duSes of MB,Qfficcr8Bd asif theprincipal autv of the otIiGe tVas to ex6ctit^%e laws of Congreas; but that is uot the Presideutla'owL That portion of it, that is the common oath of evrtfj^firay in autaority, ia f o discharge the duties of his ofhie ;, bm titt peculiar oMh of tbo Presidebtttheofithpf t'he Cons^ittmott, IS in the larger portion of it vP^hich mak^s hira the" awom preserver, protector and deWuder of tho CdlilBtitifc tiou itself- that iai am oflfice aUd< th^Lt is aii 'ptAa which the people of tl^e United Stated have ibti'lilSfed to and exacted from no other' * pnblic servant Than the President of the United States, aUd wheri^Jiiey conferred that power and exacted thatdut.V; theytfM^* etood itfl treraendous responsibility, the trehaendouB'w^ sition which it inight encounter, and thoy understood their duty, implied in tho BufiYage which Md confernid. the authoritv and exacted-the obljig^tlou to maintlftifl'Mta in it as againat foreign aggresBion, ae alg'aib^t dbmostSc violence, aa against encrbachraenta fpora ¦tvHafcever, 'tfifflt^ teri under the gulae bf Congreea or under wb'ateVer'amKi- rity upon the true vigor of the Constitution. ' ^^ President Lincoln's solemn declaration, on which' iie gained strength for himself, aud l^' which be gkve Strength to the people,' "I have a Boleinn vow registered iuHeawu that I will preaei-ve, ptoteCt aUd defend the Constitution of the United Srates,*" fcan'ied him and carried tm 'people fcllowing hiiu through the atruggles, the changes, the vicis situdes of the Rebellion, and that vovy aa a legend how adorns the balls of legislatiou in more thau 6ue State of tbo Union. ' ThiB oath of the PresideTit, thia dutv of the prejudent the people of this country do not ih the least regiird a)i pey- Bbntil to him: but'it ial an oath ,an^ a duty assuni^daudfo be pefTorraed as their representative in their interests aud for their honor, and they have def erminpa, aud W'iU ad here to their determination, that that oath shall not be takeu in vain. They understand that Uie literal jjhrasfe, "to the beat of my abiilty," which ia the moflest lorm ia which the PreBident'a obligation is assumed, nieans uot only tho ability of the President, but the abilitt^ pf,th9 country ; and raost magnificently have the people PfO,tignt ont its recourse in aid of that Oath of Presiaent LmeolB'a. Aud eo, wheu the shock comes, not in the form ofyiowSeet ^if War, of rebellion, but of a strugrfe ' betv^eeb fo^s oflhfa government ju relation to constitutional authopItjfjjtHB people of the United States regard the prcRideUt as hound , ' to the special fidelity of watching^ that all dopartmenls Of thiBgov6i'hment obey the ConBtitution, as well aathat he obeys It himself. It gives him no aaBumption of authority beyond the lawa andthe Constitution; but aU tho authority ahd all the resources of the' laws and of tbe Conatitution are open to him, aud they will nep to it -that he,. the Pree> ¦dent'bf the United States, whoever he ihav bo, iurela^jou to the office and iU dutiea, shall not tako thia oath in vaifl, jf they have tho power to raaintain hirii in^ its perfornjr aUee. That, indeed, the Gonatitutlou isAhovb him, as it IS above all Of tho servants of the people ; a^ it ia above the 0(5ople themselvea, until their sovereignty shalj' cbange It they do uot doubt, aud thus aU their aervantgi, ' the Pre- . sident, tbe Congrees, and wJioevev tbey , may be, «*e tyatchied by the people 6f the United Statea, in relation in the liihitation of the Constitution, N ot diBt)Utbig the reg* larity, the complete autheuticity the adequate authority of this entire procedure ot accusation, through trial and down to sentetice, the people yet claidi the right to see and to know that it ia duty to thgiConstltution, observed and followed throughouti wblcb brings the result, wbav ever it may be. IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 233 Thus satisfied, they adhere to the Constitution, and tbey have uo purpose to'phange it. They are converts to no theories of Congressional oranipotence; underatand none ofthe nonsense of the Conatitution being superior to the lawe, except that the laws must 'je obeyed under the Constitution. They know their govemraent and they mean to maintain it. And wheu they hear that this tre mendous enginery of impeachment and trifil and threat ened conviction or aentence, "If the laws and facts will juatify it," has been brought into play, that that power which has lain iu the Constitutiou, like a sword iu a ahoath, ia uow drawn. Tbey vvish to kuow what the crirae is that the President is accused of. They underatand that treason and bribery sffe made otleneee ; that thoae who are guilty of them mould be brought into queation aud dopoeed. They are readv to believe that there may be other great criraea and Uilederacauore touching the conduct of the government and the- welfare of the State, which may equally fall within tho jurisdiction and the duty, but they wish to know wbnt tho criraea are. They wish to know whether the Preaideut has betrayed our liberties or our possesaions to a foreign State. They wish to know whether he has delivered up a fortress or surrendered a State. They wiah to kuow whether he haa made merchaudiae of the public trust or turned authority to private gain, aud when Informed that none of these things are charged or even declaimed about, they yet seek further information, aud they are told that he-has removed a raeraber of his Cabiuet. Now. the people of this country are so familiar vvith the re moval of raembers of the Cabinet, and of all other persone lu anthority, that that raere stateraeut doea not strike them OS a grave otrenae, needing the interposition of this special jurisdiction. Removal frora office ia notwith tho people! and especially those engaged in poUtlcB, a terror or jtdiaagreoaWc subject.' Indeed, it may be said that it makes a great part of tbe political forces of tho country; that removal from oflice ia a thing in the Constitution and iu the habit of its adininia- tfation. I remeraber to have heard it said that an old lady Once flumraed up au earnest doteuae of tho seven dograas of Calvlnlera by aaving that if you took away her total de- prayity you took away all her religion. (Laughter.) And there are a good mauy people in this country of wbdui It raay be said, if you took away reraoval from office, you took away all their politica, (Laughter.^ So that on that mere etateraent It does uot strike them cither aa an unpre cedented occurrence or as one involvinc no great danger to the State. Well; but how comea it to be a crime P'tbey inquire. Why. Congreas paeeed a law. for the flrst time in the hie tory of the governraent, understood to control this re moval frora office, and provided that If the President sliould violate it it should bo a crirae, or rather a misde meanor; andthat now he has removed, or undertaken to remove a meinber of his Cabinet, and is to be removed hiraself for that cause. He undertook toi make' au ad in terim Secretary of War^ and you are to have made for you au ad interim PrcHideut in consequence. Now, that aeeins the situation. Was _,the Secretary re moved, they inquire. No, he was not reraoved, he is etill Secretary, still in the posaeaaion of the departraent. Was force used, was violence meditated, attempted, or applied? No, it was all ou paper, aud all went uo further' tban mak ing the official attitude out of which a judgraent of the Supreme Court could be gotj and here Congress interrupt ing again, thie great authority of the goverument is intcr- poscdttie procedure of trial and irapeachraout of the Prc- aidcn^o settle by its own authority thia question between it and the Executive. The people see and the people feel that under this attitude of Congrees there seeras to be a claira of right to the exercise of what Is supposed to be a duty to preveut, the Suprerae Court of the United States from Interposing the sev^e judgment in tho coUi^ons of tho government and of the laws aftect ing either the framework of tbe governraent or the liber ties 01 the citizen^ and they are not alow to understand, without the aid of the arguments of the honorable mana- ?er8, that it is a questiou between the omnipotence of )ongresB and the supremacy of the Conatitution of tho United States. That ia an iasue on which the people bave no doubt. From, tho beginning of their liberties they have bad had a clear opinion Ihat tyranny vvas as likely to be eT^ercised by the ParUaraent as by the King or any body else. The honorable managers have directed your' notice to the principlesand the trials of the American Revo lution as haviug show^ a deterraination to overthrow rof th( ' ¦ — _ he king, and thby tbld lis that tbia people will not. bend their necks to the usurpations of the Presi- tiie tyranny willnot ben ^ dent. Tho people wiU not bend their necks to the usurpa tions of auyboay. But they kuow that their fathers went to war agamst tho tyranny of Parliament, and that, under the necessity of flnally Becuriug tbeir liberties, they severed their counectlous with the mother country. If any honor able member of either bousewillperase the worklu the convention vvhich framed the ConBtitution of thnUuiled Statoa, ho will discover that, of allthe powers which might grow up, the tyranny of Congress was moro provided aeainat than any other extravagance which the workings of. • '-"'" .— -=. ..— adoption by our people now as it was then for the people of Englnnd. Said Lord Bacon to Buckingham, the arbi trary minipter of Jainee I. :— "So far as it may be in you. let ub arbitrary power be inaugurated. The people of this kingdom love the lawa thereot, and nothing wiU oblige thora more than a confidence iu the free enjoyment ofthem." Whatthe nobles once aaid In Parliaraent, TJoJwwMMfeorcs .4nt/(2(Xmu(ftW, is imprinted In tho hearts of all the peo ple, and in the bands of all the people of thia country. The supremacy of tho Conatitution, and obedience to it. ave im printed.. Whatever progreas new ideas of parliamentary foverninent iuatead of executive authority dependent on he direct suffrage ofthe pepple, may have made with prophets and with statesraen, it haa rnade no advance whatever in the hearts orin the beads ofthe people of this country Now, I know there are a good many people who believe that a written Constitutiou for thia country, aa for evei'y other nation, ia ouly for the naecent atate, and not for the prime and vigor of manhood. Ikuowthatit Ih anokeu of aa swathing bandf, which may support ahd etrenetheu the punyliinbeof infancy^ but wnich shame and encumber tho maturity of vigor; This I know, and In either Houee I imagine sentiraenta of that kind nave been, held during the debatee of the past two Congresaoa.. But that ia not tne feeling or judgment of the people, and thl^ ia in, their eyes, In the eyea of foreign nations, aud in the eyea of the enlightened thinkers, a trial of the Conetitution not merely iu that inferior sense of a deter minatiou whether its powers accorded to one branch or other of tho governraent have this or that scope, Iinpres- sion and force,, but whether a government of a written Constitution can maintain iteelf In the forces prcecribed and attributed to its varlone departmenta. or whether the imraense papsinns ofa wealthy and powerful and populous nation will force asunder all the bonds of the (Jonstitution, aud vvhether in a struggle of atrength and'wealththe natu ral forces, uncurbed by the supreme reason of fhe State, will determine the success of one and the Bubjection of the Other. Now, Senators, tet ua see to it that in- thus trial and in tbia controversy, that we understand wliau is Ite extent and whatis to be determined. Let ueaee toit that'we play our part as it should be played, from the motives and In- tereafs which should control statesraen and judges. If it be that the guardian of liberty is at laat to loosen her zone, and her etprn monitor, law, debauched and druukou with that uew wine of opinion which is cruahed dally from^ten thousand presses throughout this land,. is to Ignore Ita guar dianship, let us at leaat bc found among thoso who, with averted eye and revetond step backward, seek to veil fhe shamcleea rivalry, and not with those who exult and jeer at ita aucccBS. Let us ao act as that what we db, and what we propoae, and what we wish, eh'all be to build up the States, to give new stability to the forces of the governraent, and curb the rash paaaiona of the people. Thus acting; doubt not that the result shall be in accord with those high aspIrationB, and those noble IrapnlSea, and thoee exalted views. And whether or no the forcea of this govertunent shall feel the shock of this special juriadiction, in obedience to law, to evidence, to justice, to duty, you will have built up the go vernraent, amplified its authority, and taught the people rebewcd horaage to all brainches of it.. And tnis brings rae, Mr. Chief Justice- and Seuators, tg au iuquiry as to a theory of this case, which waa discuitsed with empnaeie, with force, and with Ibaruiug, and that Is. whether thia ia a court? I rauat admit that I havo heard defenders argue that they were- cora/m non judice, before somebody who wae uot a ju^e, but I never yet heard, until novv, of a plaintiff or a prosecutor coming in and arguing that there was not auy court,, that thia case waa coranf, non judice. Nobody is wiser than the intrepid raanager who as suraed the first assault on fhis court, and he knew the only way he could prevent hisxase frora being turned out of t;ourt was to turn the court out of his case. (Laughter.! the expedient succeeds, his wisdora raay be juatified, I t^iiuk, aUd yet it will be a novelty. Now, itia said there is no word in the Constitution which gives the alighteat coloring to the ida that this is a court, exceut fhat iu this, cftae the Chief Juatice must prcaide. So that the Chief Jus tice's gown iis the onlV ahred or patch of justice that there is withiu these balls. But it is only accidentally that that is here, owing to tbe character of the inculpated defender; , , . - « This, WC' are told, is a Senate to hold an inquest of ofnee on Audrew Johnson.. But we have not observed lu j'our rules that each Senator iato riac^in his place, and aay;— "Office found,'" or "office not foimd." Probably every Senator does not expect to find it. [Laughter.] Yonr rules, your Constitution, your habit, yoUr etiquette, liU assume that thero is a procedure hero of judicial uature, and wo found out finally on our side of the pontroversy that it waa so much of a court at least that you could, not. put a leading queation, and that is about the extreme exerciae of tho character of a court which we alwaya ha bitually discover. erf Congreasional supreraacy sbould be fixed. They are nuwilhng that any department shall grow too strong or ^11 claim to bc too strong for the reatrainta of the Cou- Btitutioui And if men arc wise they wffll attend to what was sagaolouBly said by an Engliah statesraau, which, if <^oyod, in England, might have saved great political ahooka, and wmch is true for our guidance aud for tho .^our government might be suppoeed poaaible to produce. . Our people, then, are unwilling that our govemraent,, Now the Conetitution, as has been pointed out tqyou, ebould oe chftuged. Thov are unwilling that the doctrine makee thie a court. It raakes this a trial, aud it aaaigna a • -' * ^ — »-* •-- ^ — -» mi,;,™ ^— iuigrnent; it accords a power of puniahment to Its proce dure, and it provides that a jury In all judicial proceed- 16 iugs of a criminal nature shall bo neccBsary, except in thie courfe and under this form of procedure. Wo must aasume, then, that BO far as wordsgo, it is a court, and nothing but a court. But it is a quoBtlou, as the houorable manager sayi), of aubstance and not of form, aud he concedes that 23,4 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. if it be acount, you "must find upon evideuce soijaetliing to make out the guHt of the oflender to secure a judgnient. He argues against Its being a court, not from anv nice driticiam of words, but, ae he expressea it, for the aub stance. He haa endeavored by many references, abd by au interesting and learned brief appended to his opening, Bpeech, of EngUsh precedents and authoritioe to show that it Is alraost anything but a court. But. perhaps, during the hundreda of vears in vvhichtheinstruraent ofimpeachmeut was nsed as a political engine, if you look only to the judgments and the reasona of the judgments you would not think it waa really a very judicial procef'din^. but that through aU EnellBh history it waa a proceeding in a court controlledby the rules of a court, aa a court cannot be doubted. ' Indeed, as wo^all kn!ow,-thouBb tbe learned, man ager has not insisted up9n it. the trial, under the peculiar procedure and jurisdiction of imiieachment inthe House of Lords. was a part of the general juriediction of the House of Lorda, as the groat court of the Kingdom In all matters, civil and ciiminjii. One of the 'favorite titles of the lords of Parliament m these earlv days was judges of Parlia ment; and now the House of Lords iu Eugland is tbe Su preme court of that country aa dietinctly as ever the great tribunal of that name is m thia couritry. But one page of British sound authority will put to fiight all those dreamy, misty notions about a law and a procedure of Parliament in this couutry and In this trial that Is to bu- persedc the Constitutiou and the laws of our countrv. And now I will ehow you what Lord Thurlow thought of that fluggestion, aa prevalent or expected to prevail in England in the trial of Warren Hastings. Lord Thurlow eaid:- •'My lords, with reference to the laws and usages of Par liaraent, I utterly disclaim all Knowledge of such laws; they have no existence. True, it is, in times of despotism and popular fury, when they irapeached an individual and wiahed to criieh hira by the etrong hand of power, of tumult or of violence, the laws and usages of Parliaraent were an¦e^ted inorderto jnfetify the raost iniquitous or atrocIouB acta ; but in the^s days of light and of constitu tional govei-uraept, I trust that no man will be tried ex cept by the law of tbe land, a system admirably calcu lated to protect Innocence, and to punish crime." And after Bhowing that In all theJState triala under the Stuart reign, and even down to that of SachevereU, were to bo found the etrongeat marks of tyranny, oppression, and injuetice, lord Thurlow continued;— "I trust your lordahips will not depart from tbe recog nized eatabllahed lavy of the land. The CbnlmonB raay impeach. Your lordships are to try the caae, and the same rules of evideuce, and the aarae legal forraB that ob tain In courts of lawwill, I am coUfident, be obaerved in this Aasembly." But the learned manager did not tell us what thlawAEi if it was not aeoui'f. It is true, he said it was a Senate, but thnt conveyB no idea. It is not a Senate conducting legislative business ; It is not a Senate acting ou executive business; ii is not a Senate actiug In CongroBa uu political forces; and the questiou remains. If it la uot a Senate. what is it? If this is uot an altar of juatice ; what Is it if We are not all miniatera of justice here to feel its eacred flarae? What is th© altar, and what ie it that we do here about it? . It is an altar of sacrifice. If it ia Uot au altar of juatice. and to what divinity ia that altar erected but to to the divinity of nartv hate and party rage. What, theU| ie the altar about which you are to rainister? Now,, our learned raanagers, repreaenting the Houae of Eepreeentatlvea do uot aeera to have been at all at pains to conceal the party spirit and the party hate which dis played iteelf iuthe haate, record, and raaintenance of this irapeachment; and to ahow you what progresa we may make In the couree of thirty years €u the true, idea of the Conatitution and of the uature of impeachment, let me read to .you what the managers of the impeachment of Judge Peck had to aay in that behalf. Tbemanagers on that occasion couslated of Judge Arabroae Spencer, of New York ; Mr. Henry A. Stories, of New York ; Mr, Mc- D. iff and Mf, Pinckney, of South Carolina, and Mr. Wick- Uffe, of Kentucky, a pretty solid bidy of managere. Ambrose Spencer, aa atcru a politician aa he was au up right judge,' upon the case, let rae aak attention to what he said. "There is, however," said he, "one cheering aud consolatory reflection— the House of Representatives, after a patient and full examinaclon, carae to the result to ira peach Judge Peck by a very large raajority, and the re cord vvill show the absence of all party feeling. Could I ' believe that that appiial for influence had mingled itself with a predoniiuatiug uowerin that vote, no earthly con- . sideration could prevail over rae as one of the prosecutors ¦ of thia impeachment. I have no words to express the ab horrence of my soul at the Indulgence of auch unhallowed - feeling upou auch a soleran procedure." Now, Mr. Manager Butler talked to you many hours.. Did he aay anything wisei" or juater or^aafer for the repub lic than tnat. Judge. Spencer know what It wa<^ fo be a judge aa well aB a politician for twenty years. While on the bench in Now York, a great Judicial light in tho cora mon law jurisprudence of that State, he waa thct headand leader of a political party, and earnest and uuIUnchine in aupport of its raeaaures and ita discipUne, and yet no law yer, no suitor, no critic, ever youturt>d to aa,y, to think, or to feel that Judgo'Spencer. on the bench, was the poli tician, or carried any traSt or trace of partj' feelingon it. Judge Spencer waBa poUtlcidu. In the llouee of Kepre- eentativea Judge Bpcncer, ih the mauagftmcut of an im peachment, coidd only say tha^ if party fceliue mingled in. It. ho would have ri6thlng to do with it ; f I'bm hiiS soul he ab horred It in reference t aon, or judicial acrutiuv, or judicial weighing and balqno- ing of facts and of law, couldresult in a judgment. Alas! to what ends are the wifidom and the courage of civil prudence and the knowledge of hiatory which ouf anceatora brought to the framing of the Conatitution? Of what Bervlce thoee wiae. those honeat fraraers or the Con stitution on ex poet facto lawa and bills of attainder? What ie a bill of attainder? What is a bill of paiifRaudpeuali* tiea In the experience, the learning of Engliah juriepru- dence and Parliamentary hiatory? why, it is a proceed ing by a Legislature as a Legislature— an act. trial, sen.' tence and punishinent all in oue. Certainly^ If you do not sit under the law to examine ' evidence, to be impartial^ and to regard it as a question of personal guilt, to be fol lowed bv personal punishment and persoual consequence to the alleged delinquent. The counsel aud the wiedom of our fathers all pasa-^ nothing now. Our anceators wero brave and wiee. But thev were' not indifferent to the dangers which attende'dE this tribunal. They bad no resourccB where they could HOi* well fix this necessary duty in a free government, to Br yants anienable to public justice unies.') they devolVfia it on the Senate. Butlet-me showyou within the brief com- paas of the deba'te ae it appears on the journal of the con vention whieh framed the Constitution, how the fears and the doubts predominated. Mr. Madiaon objected to the trial of the President by the Senate, and especially as he was to be irapeached by the other branch of the-Lpgia- lature, and for auy act which might be called a miade meanor. The Prciiident, under these circurastances, was made, improperly, dependent upbn Congress. He would p] efer tho Supreme Court for the trial of irapeachment, or rather a tribunal of whieh that raight form a part. ' Mr. Gouverneur Morris thoueht fhat no other,tribQfial than the Senate could be truKtcd. The Suprerae Court vyast too few in nuraber, and mightbe warped or corrupted. Hei was againat the dopeudene of the executive on the legiSf lature, considering lesislative tyranny the greatest dangel* to be apprehended ; but there could be no danger that What the Senate would 8a.v on a trial, on their oaths, that ^p PreBident was guilty ofcrimcs of facts, especially afi Infthr years he conld be turned out. Tbat vvaa (Jouverneur Mbr-, rifj's wipdom as to the extent to which the Senate mtehtlie* truated under the sanction and the obllgatlona Of theit' judicial oaths. But Mr, Plnckneydisapproved of making the Sonate a Court of Impeachtoent, as rendering the Preaident too dependent ou tho Legislature, If he oppoaes a priraary law the two Honsea'would combine against him, and, under the Influence of hate and faction, throw him out of ottice. Now, there is the sum and aubstance ofthe wisdom which our anceetors could briug to thia subject, as to whether thia was to be a court. Is is undoubtedly a verv freat burden, and a very exhaustive test on ap'olitieal ody, to turn it into a court for the trial of an Executive. I may hereafter point out to you the very peculiar, the very comprehensive and aggressive ooncitrrence and com- bluatiouof circumstances combined in 'this trial, which requb'e of you to brace youfselvcB oli all the virtue that belonga to you, and to hold ou to that oath for the Divino kid which may support yon ntider these most extreme tests of human conduct to wbiob our ConBtitution aubjecta you. Now, what does tbe Constitution do for ub? A few Uttle wordfl, that Ib all. Truth, justice, oath, dutv; and what does the whole scope of our moral nature, and what siip port we may hope for, higher and extend f 0 in aliy of our affairs of life than thi". Truth, JMatice, oath, duty are the ideas which the Coustitntion has forced upon your &ouU to-day. You receive tbem, or you neglect them ; whichever tray yoil turn you cannot be the same men afterwards that yoil \v ore ; accept thera, embrace, obev, and you are noble, anu stronger, aud bpttor. Spurn and reject them, and you are worse, and baser, and weaker, and wickeder than before. It ia thia, that a froo government raust bo always held to tho power of duty, to the maintenanai of ita authority,' and to the pr&vale«ce of its own strength for its perpetual exiatcnoe. They aro little' w<»rds, but thoy have agreat power. Truth is to tho morqil ^vorld what cravitatlon Id to the material world. It is the prloaciple on Trhlch it is established and coheres. Tbe adaptation of truth IMPEAOHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON".' 235 to the affitira of raen ia In huih'an life wbat the mechanism of tbe heavena ia to tho principle which aus- tniue the forcea of the globe, diit.y ia acceptance Of obedi ence to thoae ideaSi and this once gained secures tbe ope ration that waa intended. When, theu, you have been Bubmisslve to that oath, that faith araong meu which, aa Burke ea.ys. holda tho moral eleraents of the world to- f ether, and that faith in God which binds the world to Iia throne, subduca you to the eervice of truth and jus tice. The purity of the faraily and the sanctity of juetiee bave ever been cared for and wIU ever he cared for by the ever-living guardian of human rights and IntBreata, who does not neglect what is easential to the preservation of Uie huraan race and ita Advance. The faries in old nuythology had charge of the aanctity of an oath. The imagipatious of the prophets of tbe world have sanctified the solemnity of an oath, and have peopled the places of punlsbmeut with oath-breakers. All the tor tures and torraents of li^tory are applied to public ser vants; who, Iu betrayal of sworn trusta^have disobeyed this high, this neceaaitous obligation, without which the u'hole fabric of aociety falls into pieces. Now, Ido not know why or how it is tbat we are so constituted, but so It is— tbe m^oral world has it laws as well as the material world -why a point of steel lifted over a teraple or hut should draw the thunderbolt aud speed it safely mto the ground. I know uot bow, in our moral Constitution, an oath lifted to Heaven can draw from the great swollen cloud of paa aion, and of interest, and of hate, Ita charge ; I know not, but BO it 18, and be sure that loud and long ae theae honora ble managers may talk, although thoy apeak inthe voice of all tho people ofthe United States, with their bold peraua- sion$, thatyou shall uot obey a judicial oath, I can bring aeainat it but a siugle aentence and a single voice, but that sentence is a commandment, and that voice speaks with awe;— "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God In vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that tuketh His name in vain." The moth may consume the ermine of that Supreme Court whose robes you wear, ruat may corrode. Senators, the centre of your power, nay, Mcsars. managers, time even shall devour the people whoae presence, beating against the door of their Seuate, you bo much love to taunt and'menace, but as to tbe word whicii I bave spoken heaven and ^arth may pass away, but no jot ot title of it will fail. At this point Mi*. Evarts yielded to a motion to adjourn, Mid. the court, at 4>f, adjourned until 12 o'clock to-morrow. PROCEEQINGS OF WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29. The court was opened in due form. Despite tbe un favorable weather, tbe desire to bear Mr. Evarts bad fllled the galleries at an earUer hour than usaaJ. Mr. Nelson's Challenee. Mr. SUMNER submitted an- order reciting that Mr. Nelson, of the counsel for the President, having nsed disorderly words directed to oue of the managers^ namely:—" So faras any questions that tbegentleman desires to make of a personal character with me is concerned, tbis is not the place io make tbem. Let bim mnUeit. elsewhere, if he desires to do it;" and tbat language being discreditable to these proceedings, and apparently intended to provoke a duel, therefore tbat gentleman justly deserves tbe disapprobation ofthe Sbnate. Mr. NELSON— Mr. Cbief Justice and Senators- Mr. SUMNER— I must object unlesa it is in direct explanation. Mr. NELSON— All I derire to aay this morning- Mr. SHERMAN— I object to tbe conaideration of tbe order. Mr. NELSON— All that I desire tq do is to read the letters as I sus^gesced ^o the Senate ou yesterday. The Chief Justice— The order offered by the Sena tor from Maeaacbusetts is not before the Senate if ob^ jected to. .Mr. BUTLER— I Jpust, eo far as I am concerned, tbat on anything that arose yesterday— any language toward me— no fnrther action will be taken. As to the re'adhig of the lettera, I object to tbem until tbey can bo proved. Mr. JOHIirsON— i move to lay tlie resolution ol fered by the Senatorfrom Massachusetts ou i^be table. The Cbief Justice— It is not before tbe Senate. Mr. NELSON again endeavored to get tbe attention of the Senate. Mr. SUMNER- 1 must object to any pereon pro ceeding who haa used the language in this Chamber used by that gentleman. Tbe Cbief Juatice— The Cbief Justice thinks the Senate can undoubtedly give leave to tbe counsel ¦IW)^ proceed if they aee fit. If any objection is made, the' Question must be aubmitted to tbe Senate. Mr. TRUMBULL— After what has occurred, and tbe statement having been received from thom, I, think it is proper that ihie counsel should also bave permission co make a etatement in explanation, and I raove that be have leave. Mr. SUMNER—I wisb'to nnderstand tbe motion made by the Senator from Illinois. Is it that tho connsel bave leave to explain bis language of yes terday? _ Mr. JO uNSON— Debate is not in order, Tbe Chief Juatice— No debate Is in order. Mr. TRUMBULL— My motion is, that he have Jeavtf to make bis explanation. Inasmuch as bne ofthe managers bas made an explanation, I' think it due to tbe counsel. The motion was decided in the afflrmative without a division. -''' * Apolosy. \ Mr. NELSON— M». ChiefJustice and Senatora, I hope you will allovv me before I raake an explanation to say a single word iu answer to the resolution of the Senator. My remaria were raade iu the heat of what 1 eateemed to be vei^ great provocation. I intended uo offense to the Se nate in what I said, and if anything is to be done with the resolution, I truat the Seuate wfll permit me 'to defend my self against the imputation, Ae the houorable managers deaire that this thing should end here, however, I meet it In the same way. So far aa I ara concerned I have nothing more to say of a peraonal nature. I wiU read the letters as part of my explanation. » ' Senator HOWE aud otbers objected. The Disputed I^etters. Tbe Chief Justice— The Chief Justice ia ofthe impres sion that the leave does bot extend to the reading of the letters. If any Senator makea the motion it can be done.^ Seuator DAVIS— I rise to a point of order. After the^ Seuate has permitted oue of the counsel to make au expla nation, I make the question whether a mauagel- has anv right to Interpose an objection? I think a Senator may have such right, but I deny that the manager has any such right. The Chief Juatice—The Chief Justice ^understood the motipn of tbe Senator from llliuoia, Mr, Trumbull, to be confined to an explanation of the personal matter which arose yesterday, and aa it did uot extend to the reading of the letters. It is a question .to be subraitted to the Senate ;' leave can be.mven if the Senate sees fit. , ¦ Seuator HOWAIID— I beg leave respectfully ta object to the reading of the letters proposed to be read by the "counsel. The Chief Justice— No debate is in order. Senator HOWARD— I raise an objection to the letters beiug read until after they bave been subraitted to the manage rs for exaraination. Senator HENDRICKS— I move tbat the counsel be al lowed to read so much of the letters as will show what date tbey bear: , Senator TIPTON— I call for tbe ' regular order of of the moming, the defense of the Preaident. Tho Chief Justice— The regular order ia themotion ofthe tb&Senator from Indiana, Mr Hendribks. Senator HOWE called for a restatement of the motion. Senator HENDRICKS-The motion I made is, that the attorneya for the President be allowed to^ad so much of the letter as will show ita date aud tiie place at wliich it waa written, Tbe motion was agreed to. Mr. NELSON-The firet letter to Which I alluded is tbe letter bearing date March 9th, 1868, addresBed by Beji. F. Butler to CoL J. W. Shaffer, Waahington, D. C. Senator JOHNSON— Ie that the original letter, or a copy? Mr. NELSON— I understand it tobe an original let ter. My understanding is tha these are the genuine eig- Uaturea of Benj. f. Butler. Mr. Logan aud Mr. Garfield. I ' am uot acquainted with the handwriting ahd only epeak from infonnation. The Senate will allow me to read it. It JS' a very short one, I do not mean— Senators HOWAIID and HOWE objected. Tbe Chiet Justice— !)'be counael canuot read it under thO' order made. - Mr. NELSON— The fact that I want to call attention to, inthat this letter on the captlou beara date on the 9tb of March, 1868. It ia signed by Bei^. P. Butler. Below the signature, ''^ — '"" -'-— — Mr. Butler," words. " auL. _, — ., — .„«.^ other date of that title except the 9th of March, 1668. Senator JOHNSON^Ia the bandwritiAg of the date tbe sarae as tho signaturer Mr. NELSON— THe handwritiug and the date are in pre- 236 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. ciUel V tbe aame handfyriting . as , the addresBt Tbe body of tbe letter above tho Bignaturei asl take it, iein a different handwriting. On tho 16th of March. 18m, Mr. Chauncey F. Black addressed a letter to ihe President stating that he inclospd the copy ofthe letter whUSh I juat referred to, aAd in order that the Senate may hnderstand it. vou will ob-' aerve that the copy ia, as if believe, identical with the original letter which I have produced here. , Senator HOWE objected to any argument, and tbe Chief Justice cautjoucd the counsel. Mr. NELSON~If your Honor please, I -cannot explain tbe raatter without explaining thia fact I am not trying to mako any arguraent, . Senator HENDiaCKS— My motion was that tbe counsel ahould be permitted (o read so, much as would ehow th6 date, not to go further, except so far aaUiay be iu direct explanation ttf the argument of Manager Butler. Mr. NELSON— I orinnot explain about the date of this copy, unless I tell you the difference about those papers which I have read. It is impossible for me to explain the date, All that I can say is that this copy' bears the same date as tho originul, and beara tho additional signatures of Messrs. Koontz, Stevi ne, Moorhead, Blaino and Bingham, and that there is no other date to thii letter ¦ except the caption of the letter, and you will Bee that the copVls' Srecisfvly liko .the original down to the words, "Audi, ohn A. Garfield," and then corae the words, 'T concur," signed hy Messrs. Knontz, Stevens, Moorhead, Blaine aud Bingham, and on that paper there ia uo date. SenatorTIPTON— Iraovo that the gentleftnan be per mitted to proceed for ono hour. ^ TheChief Justico— The counsel for the President (Mr. Evarts) will proceed. Mr, Butler, vi-alklng over to the doHk of the President'a counsel, extended his hand for the K'ttci-s, and Mr. Nelsun. after saying something in an inaudible tone, handed thera to him, but Mr. Butler thereon turned away seemingly irritated by the accompanving remark. Senator CAMERON offcrrd the following:— Ordered, That the Senate, sitting aaa court of impeach ment, shall hereafter hold night Beaaioue, coramencing at eight o'clock P, M. to-day, and continuing until eleven o'clock, until the argumenfle of tho counsel for the Presi dent and the nianagere on the part of the House of Repre aentativea shall be concluded. Senator JOHNSON objected, and the order wont over. Mr. BUTLER— Mr.« President, ehall these ordera which have been read bo placed on the record; The Chief Juetiee- The Cbief Juetiee Ie unable to answer thatqueetion. He takes it for granted that no arrange ment can be mode without the conseut of the Senate. Mr. NELSON-All that i desire to do was; this :-I told the honorable managor ho could Have them, provided he _would return the orielnal to mo. I am perfectly willing ^hat he should take them with that undoretandiug. Tho counael thon aent the letters to Mr. Butler by a page. Mr. BUTLER-prawIug back indignantly). No, sir. Mr. NELSON- I will deposit them with the Secretary, sir, .for thepreaeut. Mr. BUTLER-Let the originals go on fib. Mr. Evarte Heauines his Arerument. Mr. EVARTS then took the floor iu continuation of bia argument. Ho said:— Mr. Chief Justice and Seuatore, if, indeed, we have arrived at a eottleraont or conclusion that thieieacourt; that it is governed by thelaw; that it Isto confine Ite attentiou to facts applicable to the law, and re garded Boiely as supposed facts, tobeiemhroBed within the teatiraony of witnesses oi- docuraents produced iu court, we have made Bomo progress In separating, . at least from your further consideration, much that has been presyedupon your attention heretofore. If the idea of Sower and will la driven from this aBaembly; if the Presi- ent is here no longer exposed to attacka on tho aarae piiu- ciple that men claim to nu-it the lion and harpoou the whale, then, indeed, much that haa been said by the honorable managers, and much that has been urged upon your attention from so many qimrters, falls harmless Im your midst. It cannot be aaid in this Senate, "fertur rU- meris leqis solutia,^' that it ie caused by numbera and un restrained by law. On tho contrary, right hero is life and power, and ae It ia a servant iu tma Invcatigatlon, you are aere. It followa ff-om this, that the Preaidont Is to be. tried on charges which are produced here, and not on common farae. Least of all. Is he to bo fried, in your judgment, aB be has beon arraigned,' hour alter hour in argument, upou chargea which the impeaching authority, itbo House of Representatives, deliberately throw out' aa unworthy of impeaclimeut,, and unsuitable for trial,' We at Isaat, when wc have an indictment ^brought into court, and another indictment ignored and throv^n out, are to bc tried on the former, aud not' on tho latter.. Ajud if on tho 9th of December last, the Houae of Representatives, with which by .tbe Gonatitution reetB the sole impeaching ?ower under this government, hy, a. voto of 107 to 67, hrew out all the topics wliicb mako up the inflam- maliory, uddresses of tbo managers, it is enoiigli for mo to say that for rcoaons Batisfactory to that auth'ority, * tbe House of Repreflentati'vtoB, those chargea were thrown out, ao. too, if this be a trial on a public proaeoutlon, nnd witu the«nda pf public juatice alctoeiu view, tho ordmary rules for, tho reaiating of proaocutlng authorities apply hero ; and I do not heaitate Co eay that thia trial— to be in iuour annala tho most conspicuous in our history t to bo sCrutlnijEed by moro professionnl eyes ; by the attention of mol'e ecbolars. nt homo, and ai^oad; to be preserved in morc libraries; to bo judged of ns a national trial, a. na tional ecalci and a national criterion forever— presents tho unexampled apectaclo of a prosecution which overroaohes judgment from the very beginning, and invades, iiupugus and oppreaaes, at every etago, the victim which it pnrflupa. Now, the duty of constraint upou a proaecutlng authority, under a governraent of law puraiiing only public justico, is scarcely losa strict aud severe tba-n tliat which rests upoa the judge himself. To select evidence that la not pertinent, to exclude evi dence knowing thatit boara upon tho inquiry, to restrict ovidence kuowing thatthe field is thua closed agaiust fho true point of justice, is no part of a proaeouting au thority's duty or power. Whatever maybe permitted la the conteet of the forura and the zeal of couteudtng law yera for contending clients, there is ao auch authonty, no such duty, no such permiBsIou for a public pro9ecut6^ much less when the proofe have be?n thua kept narrovVficl. Wlien the charges are thus precise and technical, ia It per- mlssable for a prosecuting authority to enlarge tho area 6f doclaraatiou and invective. Much lese isit aultahlofora public prosecutor to Inspire in t!bo minda of the court pfft. judice and extravagant jurisdiction, Novv it has usually been supposed, that on nn actual trial, Involving serious consequencea, forensic dlagusBloa was tlie truo raethod of doallug with the subject; aud we lawyers appearing for tho . Preeident, beigg, as Mi't Ma nager Butler baa been polite enough to sny, ''attorneya vi'hose practice In the law had sharpened but uot onlarael thoir intellect," have confined ourselves to this method of forenaic diacuasion. But we have learned hore that there is another method of forensic conlroveray, which' may be called the raethod of concuBsiou. Now X undtirstand the method of concuealou to bo to mako a demonstration bi the vicinity of the object of attack, whereaa tho method ofdiBcussion ia to penetrate the poaition, , aud, if successful, capture it. Tho Chinese method of waif are is the method of concussion,, nnd cousIatB of a groat bray ing of trumpets, sounding oigongs, and shoutB and shrieks In tho noignbo^hood of the opposing forces. Wlien all this rol le away, nnd the' air la freer, tho effect isio bo watched for. But it has boon rosei-vcd to us in our modern warfare ne illustrated here— in the Rcbolllon--to preaent a more singular and not able instance of tho method of war fare by concusalou than ever has been known before, , A fort Impreguftble by tho raethode of diecussiou, "that la, penetrating and capturing it," has beon, on a large saale^ f^tteniptod to be captured by tl^e method of.,ooucusslou, and Some hundreds of tons of gunpowder placed lu a vei- sel near the walld of the furt, hus been made the moaD? to the concussion of thia vait expierimont. , r'-nUn satiafied with that trial and ita result, the honorable manager who opened this caae aeeras to have repeated tho experiment in the vicinity of the Senate. (Laughter). While tho air was filled with epithets, the dome shook with invective. Wretchodneas, mlaery, suffering and blood wore made tlie means of this exploaive mixture, and hero we are Burviving the concussion, aud, after all, reduced to tbo humble nndhoraely method of discussion which bo- longs to "attorneys whoao intellects bave boon aharpened, not enlarged by the practice of law." (Gonoral aud con tinuous -lauglHer.) Xn approacliiug the- eonsidiiration t)f what conetltuti'B impDachable ofCenaes witlfln tho true method and duty of thia solorau and unuaual'lproceduro, and within tho Couatltution, wo see that tho efrort of the managers was to make this an inquest of office, lufltead of a trial of personal and constitutional guilt. If it ia. hn inquest of offioe, "Crowner'a queat -law" will do throughout for ua, instead ot the more Holofflp pre cedents 'and more dignified authoritiea and dutleswrnch belong to solemn trials. Mr. Manager Butlor has given ub a very thorough and well-considered suggehlion Qf whjit constitutes ^an Impeachable offenae. Let me aak vour at tention to it, Wo define, therefore, an impeachahlo high crime or misderaeanor to bo one, iu its naturo Or conse- quences,8uboer8l!\>eiif soms fundamental or essmUc^ priih ciple of govemment, or highly prejudicial to the puhlio interest, and thay hiay consist of a violation of the Con stitution, of law, of an otficlal oath, or of duty, by an act cpinmitted or omitted, or without violatiug a positive law, by the abuse ot discretionary powers, from improper rao tivea,^!* for any iraproper purnoBo. Now, what largo clomenia arc included in that section ? The aci muet bo Bubversivo of eome fundameutnl or es> aentlal principio of govornment, or highly prcjudicialto tbejpublic iutereat, and.rauBtprooeed fronj ImpropoPmo- tlvps, or for an improper purpose. Now thnt was intended lin the generality of its terras, to avoid the necoeslty of ac tual and po»itiVo crime. "But it has given us iu ooo regard everything that was needed to show what an impeachable pffonso/must^be. Now iho fallacy of thoae gonoral nuallfV. ing tormb is m making thom tho eubstance of the climo, ' instead of the condition of the peccadllity. You must have tho crime denned under tbe law and Conatitution, oud ovou then it ia not, impeifthable, unless you' affect it with Bfjn^u**' "\^^9, public, general and Iraportant qualities "' " ~ "lin this ^-''-^" '^ ¦' ¦ . --> which are indicated in tfiis definition by" the iearncd^nd ;hon6rablo manager.' Now let us look at a stateinont mado by a committee of mnungora of the Houae of Ropresenta tives in tho caso of the impeachn;ient of Judgo Pock. ¦^Mr. Evarts read an extract from the remarks of Mr. Buchanftn, chftlmiau of the managers In tbe caao of Judgo Pock, to tho effect that the managors •jvere bound to prove that the rospondent hud violated tlie Constitution or eome known law of the hind, arid had cobuuittcd ralBbohavior In office. Hejuso read from Burke's Invective in tbe caao of Warren HaatlugB, to ^ihow that tho charges Mnlnatllaat- Ings were npt for dTors or mistakes, euch as t^iae and good men might fau intoi and which mlgbt prdduco vory per nicious effecta without being, In fact, great offonsos, and that a largo allowance ought to be mode for hUmao io- IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 237 firmity and fbr huraan error, and that the c rimes charged agamst him were not defects of judgment, or errors cora- mou tohuraaufra,ilty. which conld be > allowed for, hut were ofleuscB having their roota in avarice, insolence, ti^acbery and criminality. Mr. Evarts theu, continned :_I need not Inelstonthe very deUnite. concise and effective argument of tho leamed TOUnsel who opened the case for tho respondent (Mr. CnrtlB),aB to the clause in tho Constitution prohibiting ex post facto laws and billa of attainder. But it ia essential Here that theact charged shall have what is cnme agaiur-t the Constitution and crime againat the law, and then that tha-t cnme shall have those uublic propositions which are indicated lu uie definition of the opening manager, and those traits of freedom from errors which belonga, in the language of Mr. Burke, to au arduous public station. You will tben perceive that uuder thiB necessary condition, eitherthis judgment must be arrived at, that there is Uo impeachable offense here which carries with it these con ditions, or else that "the evidence offered in behalf of the reapondent, which was to negative, which -vas to countor- vau, which was to refute all theae qualificaclons, ahould bave been admitted. When a cqurt like tbia bas excluded the whole rauge of evidence relating to the public characterof the accused, and to the dltficultiea ot an arduous pablic station, it must have determined thnt the crirae charged doe.^ not partake flf that quality, or elae the court would have regarded the charge to have beeu affirraatively supported by proof, and would bave permitted tb^e proofs to be refuted by a coun tervailing evidence. When a court sits only for a apecial trial, when ita proceedings are incapable of review, when neither its law nor its flictscau be subiected-to reconsidera tion, the nceessarv Qouaequeucelsthat when you come to make up your judgraent, you muat take into considera tion all that offered to be j)roved, aU that could fairly haveroeen proved, or elae it is your d'lty, before you reach the inevitable step of judgment and sentence, to resume rae trial and call in the^ejected evidence. I submit it to you that a court without review, without new trial, without exception and without possible correc tion of errors, must deal witlr evidence iu tbis rule : and that unleea you arrive— as I suppose you raust— at the con clusion that the determluatlona of this trial relate to a for mal, technical infraction of a statute lavv that has beeu brought iaevidence here, Itwill be your duty to re.jpen your doors, call the respondent again before you. aAl go linto the field of inquiry, vvhich has uot been perraitSd to him, but hae beeu occupied by pas.«ion and dc<9araatiQa on ¦ tbe part of the raanagers. When the powers of the Cou- .Btitutiou put iuto it, as the necessary result of a trial Of the Preaident of tho United States, and of his couviction, that hia puniehraent should be deprivataon of office, and thatthe public ehould suffer the nccessiV- of an election they showed you what they meant by nigh crimes and ndBdemeanora. I know that soft words have been used by every m anager 'h^ on the subject of the mercy of our Conetitution in the amallueEu of the punishment— that it does not touch life, Hberty or property. Is that the eura of the penalty? Is that the meaaure of puniBhmeut? Why, you raight aa well aay that when the raother feels for the first tirae the new- . born infant's breath, aud it ia snatched firora her and de stroyed before her eyes, that you have not deprived her of life, liberty or property; and, therofore, thatthe punish ment is Usht in a Republic where public apirit is the life, and where public virtue iatheglory of the State; and this in 'the presence of public men, poaseeaiug great public talents, high public passions and ambitiouB mode up as this body of men, springing, many of thera, from the ordinary con ditions of Araerican life, aud by the force of their native tiilents aud by the high qualities of endurance and devo tion to the public eervice, who have elevated themselves iuto their erainent positioue, if not the envy, the adiuira- ion of all their countrymen. It is gravely proposed to you, holding th^ elevated position, and who etill not disdains to look upou the Presidency of the United States as still a higher, a nobler, and a greater oifice, to sav that it is a little thing to take a President from his public station and to strike hira down, branded witb high crimes and miede- msauore. to be a by-word and a reproach through the long vista of histo.'-y forever and ever. In the great hall of Venice where long rowsofdogeB cover the walls with their por traits, the one erased, the one defeatured canvas attracts to it, everv eye ; aud yet we are to be told that one who, through his devotion to the public service, has reached the highest public eminence in the State, raaybe cast down forever into a pool, uot of oblivdou, but of infaray, aud may carry with him to bla posteriity, for generations, thatinfamv; andthat Isa trifiing matter, and docs not touch life, liberty or property . If these are the estimates of public character, of public fame, of public disgrace, ¦with which you, the writers of this couutry are to record, yon have indeed written tor the youth of the country the solemn lesson that he is dust and ashes, indeed. Why are the people of this couutry to be called tn a Presi dential election iu tho middle of a term, altering the whole '(^lendar, it may be, of the governmeut because there may have been an infraction of penal statute? It is occi dental, to he sur^, that the enforced and irregular election which must follow on your sentence at this time, concurs With the usual quadrennial elections, but it Is aimply acci dental The provision of that penal law hraiting the scale ^ punishraent is, that the fine shall uot exceed ten thou aand dollars, and that the iraprisonraent shall not exceed five vears; but a fine of six cents and an irapriBonment of one dav, according to tbe uature of the offeu«e, withm the discretion of the court, may satisfy public juatice under au indictment for violation of the law. Nor was this unre- f Jf ictp-d mercy of the law unattended to iu the debate on the biU. The honorable Senatorfrom MaBBacbusette (Mr. Suniner) in the course of the discussion of that section of the hiil. having Buggo8ted that It would be well at least to have a moderate minimum of punishment, and haviug suggested a thousand dollars or five hundred dollars as the luwest limit, the Senato acted on this wise intimation that some time or other there might come to be a trial under thifl section hefore a court which had a political virus. Mr Evarts read short extracts from the reraarks Of Senatoi^ Sumner. Edmunds and Willlaraa, aud continued: —Ihat bemg the measure and thatthe reason of thelaw, there Isclaraped upon it a ueceesaiy and inevitable re sult which fs to bnng these vast couaequences fo the State and to the respondent. But even theu you do not know or understand the nill measure of the discretion unless you attend to the feet that such forraal technical crirae as are raade the subject of conviction aud sen tence are, according to the principles of onr Couetitution, and to the system of every other civilized government, raadii the subject of pardon; but under thia proceasofira- Eeachmeut there Is but one puniahraent, and that the ighcet that can be inflicted upou the public fame and character of a raan. The puuifihment is iraraitigable, im mutable, Irrevei'sible', iinpardonrhle, and no power what ever can lighten or relieve the load with which au ira peached and convicted public servant goes forth from yonr charaber with a punianment heavier than he cau bear. And now what anawer is there to this but the answer that Tvill take the load of punishraent and infamy from him, and place it soraewhere else. True It is that jf he be unjustly convicted for technical and formal faults, theu the judgraent of this great nation of intelligent and mdependent meu staraps upon hie judges the consequences which they have failed fo infiict upon the victim of their power. Then it is that tbe maxira is tme— Si innocens damnatur index Qv/)que damnatur. Then it is that the raaxira finds ita realiza tion iu the forum of public opiuion, aud iu the recorded history of the couutry. I have introduced thia conaidera tion simply to show you that those notiona that If you ean prove tbat a mau haB stumbled over a statute, it is essen tial he rauet pay the penalty, find no support iu reason, none inlaw, none iu the good sense of this high tribunal, none in the habits and viewa of the great people whom we represent. Indeed, we should .corae uuder the condemna tion of Cicero if we were to seek ou this narrow view of law such conaequencea ae I have pointed out. " Summuin jus saepe. summa injuria est.^ The extremity of the law Ib often the extremity of wickednesE, And now I am prepared to consider the general teaits and qualities of the ofTenacs charged, and I ahall endeavor to pursue in tbe course of my argument . three proposi- tioria:— First, That the alleged infractiona of this peual statute are not in themaelves, or in any quality or color that has been fastened upon tbem by the evidence in this case, im peachable offenses. Second. That whatever else there is attendant, appurte nant, or in the neighborhood ofthe subjects thus presented for your consideration, ia wholly political, not the subject of jurisdiction in this court, or in any court, but only in the §i-eat forura of political judgraent, to be 4ebated at the hustmgB and in the newspapers, by the orators and writers'to whom we are always so much indebted for cor rect and accurate views of the subjects preaented fpr auch deterraiUatlons. If I can accomplish tius, i shall have ac complished everything. ' Third. I shall ask vour attention to tbe precise acts and facta as disclosed In the evidence, and charged iu the articles, and shall bring you Ithink.to a safe arid indis putable concluaion, that eveu the alleged infractiona of penal law have none of thera in fact, taken place. We must separate, at leaet for the purpose of argument, the inuendnes, the iraputatioua, the aggravation, which find their place only in the oratory of the managers, or only in vour own minds, as conversant with the Conetitu tion. Up to twelve o'clock ou February 21, 1868, the Presi dent was inuocent and unimpeachable, and at one o'clock on the earae day he was guilty, and impeachable of the string of offenses which fill up all the articles. Leaving out the Eraory article, which relates to eonvCT- aatlon on the morning of the SSd of February,, what he did was all writing; what he did waa all public and official ; *what he did was all communicated to all the authorities of^ ¦ the governmeut having relation to the subject. Therefore you have at once proposed for your considera- .tlon, a fault, not of persoual delinquency, uot of raorality, not of turpitude; not one which disparages in the judg ment of mankind, uot oue which degrades or affects the position of tlie raalefactor. It is, as Mr. Senator WiUiams trulv said ;— "A new offense uuder the laws, an offenae not involving turpitude, and rather of a political character," Now, too, on tho proofs :~Thia offense carries no conse quence bevond what its actiou indicates, to wit : a ch Age in the head of a department. It ia not a cbange of depart ment : is is not an attempt to wrest a department or apply an omce, agaiust the law, contrary to tue regulations of the governnient, or againat the eafety or the pe^e of the State. Not in the least. Whatever imagination may sue- ge«, whatever invective may intimate, the^ fact is tnat it hi ' .lad no other object and no other plan, aud would have had uo other consequence, thau the substitution for Mr. Stantou of some other citizen of the United Statee, who, by the advice and coneent of the Senate, should he put in the vacant place of the Secretary of War, aud tohave, until that advice and conaent were given, the office filled by some legal ad interim holder of it. If, then, theremoval had been effected; if ihe effort to 238 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. assert a constitutional autborit;^ by tbe Fresideut bad been effectual, no preteuBc is made or cau he made tbat anything wae coutemp^ted which could be considered as placing any branch or the igoverhraent oUx of tbe authority of law. Whatever there inight be of favor or support of gublic opinion in favorof Mr. Stauton for thai post, and owever well deserved all 'thatmay be. Senators cannot refuse to understand that there was nothing iu his re moval which should be exaggered iuto a crirae against the safety of the State. But I go a little further than that and say, that however great mayhave been the. credit with the housea of Con gress, and with the people of his own party, which, Mr. Stanton enjoyed, it cannot be doubted that there was a general and aubatantial concurrence of view in Congress, among all the public men in the service of the goveynment, and araohg thp citizens generally, that the situation dis- cloeed to public view and public ciiticiera, an antagonisra ' between a head of a department and the Preeideut of the United States, not suitable for the public eervice, and waa not to be encouraged as a eituation in the conduct of the executive governraent 1 and that there was a general opinion araong thoughtful men and conalderate people that, however much the politics of the Secretary of War might be regarded as oetter than the politics of the Preaident, if tbey would uphold the forra of government aud recognize the official rights that belong to the two po- sitions, it was a fair and juat thing for the Preaident to expect the retirement of the Secretary of War, rather tbau that hie just aud neceeeary powera ehould be crippled. It followa that the whole thing, in act, in purpose and In cou duct. Is a formal contravention of a Bta,tute. I will not say bow criminal that may he ; I will not say whether absolute, infiexible, personal obedience to every law of tlie land may not be exacted under penalty of death from everybody holding public atation. That ia a matter for the leeislatore. Now when you consider that thie new lavy really reverees the whole action of the governraent; that, in the language of the Seuators and Reprgaentativea who spoke in its be half, it revolutiohizes the practice of the government ; aud whenyou consider that the ouly peraon iu the .United Statea whora that law In relation to the holders' of offices was intended to affect, or could, by its terms, affect, was the Preeident of the United States;, when you consider that nobody was. subjected tb it; that it was made a I'ule, a control, a restraint, a mandate, a dic tion, fo nobody else in -the United States except the President, just as distinctly as if it had said in it :— H/ the President shall remove from bffice, he shall be punished by fines and impriaonment, and when you knovv that it waa claimed that the President under the Constitution, had a right to reraove from offiee, you at once aee that, by a necessary exclueion and concluaion, it was an act po litical iu ita nature, and that its violation iu support of,' and in obedience to a higher obligation of the Conatitu tion, should bring no euch conaequencea as are attempted to be infiicted here now. Whenever anvbody puta himaelf in that poeition it cannot be made a crime of in the raoral judgment, or iu the judicial determination of the sentence and measure of pumsbment. But we are committed by the managers to the most ex- tfcordlnary views on the subject of violating what is called au unconstitutional law. Why, nobody ever vio lates an unconstitutional law, because there ripver is any such obstacle to man's action, freedom, duty and right as an unconstitutional lavv. The question la whether he vio lates the law i not whether he violates a written paper pubhshed in a statute book, but whether he violates law; and the first lesaons under a written constitution are and must b'^ that a law uncoustltu tional is no law at all. The learntd manager, Mr. BoutVell, epeakfl of law being an nulled by the judgment of the Supreme Court, but the Su prerae Court never annuls a,I^w, There is no difference in the binding force of a law, after *"^ Suprerae Court has annulled it, as he calla it, frora what there was before. The Supreme Court has no pollti- calf unction ; it has no authority or power to annul a law It has the faculty of judgraent to diecern what the law ie, and what the law haa beeu, aud ao to adraiuister it. Apply this tl? ar^ indictment for a violation of the Teuure of Ofliee act, and, suppoaine that act to be uuconatitutional, is a man to pe punished because he has violated It, and because the Supreme Court has not yet declared it unconstitu tional^ No ; he comea into court and says, 'T have violated no law." The atatute ia read. The Conatitution IS read. The judges say you have violated no law, and that enda the matter. The man does not need to appeal to the decision of the court as to the measure of puniBbmeut or to the raercy of tha Executive. In tho matter of par- dons he bas done what was right, aud he needs to make no apology to Congrees or to anybody else, but Congress owes an apology to hira. I shall consider thia matter more fullj- hereafter, and now allude to it only in view of fixing a neceesarily reduced eatlmate of crirainality in the act. Much has been said about the duty' of the Pflpidont to execute unconstitutional , law. I claim that the President haa no greater right in relation to a law which operates od him In his public duty, ?^«ri"P1°* him obviously to' raise a questioh under ttic Cjonstitution to deterraine to bia right, and wbat his auty Ifl, than any citizen has lU Private, capacity, when a law infringes upon hia coustitutional riglits, to aay that l^ongreas has no right to pass nnconstitutional laws, and J^«'.J.v.*,'''^®7'^°^/",*oo^ev thera just as if they were S2^f%'-i**°°^''^°<^*o.h*^P""^shed for breaking them just ?„^iL*Sf^'^*^''^?P°^*"W"^l!andto be prevented from Jn S?l fe"?^''*^°il^]i*='^«F t^ey are conetitutiona), is, of ?«*« n^i*^'^?*""^^^^ Cpnatitution. and thoee who obev it into the dust. Obey the Constitution aa againat an act of Congreaa which invades it. If the act of Con grees, with the sword of its juatice, can cut off hia head, and the Constitution haa no -power to save him, and there can be nothing but debate hereafter, whether be wae properly punished or not, gentlemen neglect the firat and necessary conditioua of all conatitutional govern ment of this nature. But, again, the form of the alleged infraction of this law, whether it was constitutional or not, is not such aa to bring any person within any impu- tation, I will not say of formal infraction ofthe law, but df auy violent resistance to or contempt of the law. Nothiag waa done whatever but to iBsue a paper and have it deli vered, which pdts the posturo of thinga in tbis condition, and nothing elBe, The Constitution, we will suppose saye that tbe President has a right to remove the Secretaryof War. I ^ The act of Congress aays tbat the President shall not remove the Secretary of War. The President save, "I wiU isaue au official order which will raise the questiou between my conduct and the statute that the statute raises between itself and the Constitution." Aa thereis and can be, and ever should be a reference of a law to the revlelon and determination of the Supreme Court, or of -aome other court, eo when the Gnfistitutlon and fhe law are, or are supposed to be at variance, or inconsistent, everybody upon whose righta are invaded has a right, under the usual condition of conduct^^to put himeelf in a ftoaition to act under the Conatitutiou and not under the aw. The President of the Uuited States has it all on paper thue far. The Constitution Is on paper. The law ia on paper, and he issued au order on paper, which is an aseertionof the Conetitution aud a denial of the law." That paper hae legal validity If tho Constitution Bustains it, and is illegal, invalid, and Ineffectual, If the law prohibits it, aud if the law ia conformed to the Conatitutiou therefore, it appeara that nothlne was done but the mere courae and process iu the exercise of right, claimed under the Constitution, without force, without violence, aud making notjiing but the altitude of assertion, which, if questioned, might raise the point of judicial determination. Now, Senatora, you are not, von cannot be unfamiliar with the principle of our criminal law, the good sense and common justice of which, "although it aometimea is puahed to extremes," approves itself to every honeet mind, and tbat ia that cnmlual punishments under auy forra of etatute, or any definition of crime, shall never be mado to operate upon acte, even of forc6.and violence, which are or honestly may be believed .to be donetinder claim of right. It is for that purpose that the miimus, *be intent, the '* animus far ani,*' in caaea of larceny ; the ' malice pre pense' in casea of murder, are made the very Bubatanco .of the crirae; a^ nothing ie felt to bb inore oppreapive, nothing has fewh precedentB iu the history of our legisla- i^tion or df our judicial decisions, than any attempt to coerce tho assertion that peaceful and cIvU claims of right by penal enactment. Itisibrthat reaaon that our com munities and our law-givers have alwaya frowned upon any attempt to coerce tne right of appeal under auy re strictions or any penalties or coats. Civil rights are righta available and practical, just according as the pe.>ple can avail theraBclves of thera, and the raoment you attach a puniehmeut to the assertion of a claimed right, you in fringe upon one of the necestary rights of the people. - - Now, I ask your attention, at least I confeeas that I dfVit with reluctance, and contrary tomy own tastes and judg ment, very much 'to what ie but a low level of illustration and of argument," But day after day it bus been pressed upon you that a formal violation of a statute, although made under claim of a constitutional right and duty honestlv felt by the Preaident, is, upvertheless, a ground of irapeachment, not to be impeded or prevented by any of those considerate induceraents. I aek vour attention to what ia hut an Illustration of the general principio that penal lawa ehall not be enforced iu reference to nu intent governed by a claira of title. A poacher had.set his wires w'lth the domain of the lord of a manor and had caught a pheasant iu the wires ; the gamester took poaseseion ot the wire and of fhe dead pheasant. The poacher approached hira with threats of forco and violence, and took from, him the wires and the dead phea- aanf. The poacher was arreeted and tiiied for robbery. Vaughan. Baron, Bays :-"If the prieoner demanded the wires under the honest conviction that he had a riglit to them, though he may be hable for trespass in eettiug thera, itisnot robbery. .The gamekeeper had aright to take them, and when 80 taken thoy never could have beon re covered from hira by the prisoner. Yet. still, if the prieouer acted under the honest belief that the propertv in them continued in himaelf, I think it ia not a robbery. 'If, how ever, he U3ed it simpl/ as a pretense, it would be a robbery. The question for the jury ie whether the prisoner did hon^ PnJf^ believe that the property was In him3elf,'or not.** 1 hus does the criminal law of a free people distinguleh be tween technical aud actual faults. What raean the gua rantees of the Conatitution? What mean tho practice and habits of English liberty, which willnot allow anvbody enjoying that liberty to be drawn into question criminally by any technical or formal view of law? What mean those fundaraental principlea of our libertv, ~ mat no man ahall be put on trial fbr accusation of crime, though forraally committed. unlesB tho grand jury shall Chooee to bring him under inculpation, and th&U when he 18 brought under Inculpation, he shall not be condcmnGd President of the Lnited States under the formal apparatua ox iron oppresBion, which, by neceaaity* if you set it a going IMPEAOHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 239 no ahall, without cnrae, without fault, without turpi tude, without the moral fault eveu of violating a etatute which ho believed to be binding upon him, briug about tho^e raonetrous consequences, raonetroua iu their con deranation of depriving him of hia office and the people of tlie country of an executive head. The court here, at two o'clock, took areceae for a quarter ofan hour. Mr. EVARTS continued.— I am quite amazed. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, at the manner in which tbeeo learned managers are disposed to bear down npon people that obey the Couatitution to the neglect or avoidance of a law. It is the commonest duty of the profession to advise and maintain and advocate tho violation of n law in obedience to the Constitutiou, and in the case nf an officer whose duty la ministerial, whoae whole obligation In his official capacity is to execute or give force to a law, even when the law does not bear upon hira, hie right then, in good faith and for the purpoee of the public service, and with the view of ascertaining bv the ultimate tribunal in eeaaon to prevent public raischief, whether the Conatitution or tbe law is to be the rule of hia conduct, and whether they be at variance, the officer should and doea appeal to the court. I ask your attention to a cafe in third Seldon'a re- ^lorts. New York Court of Appeals, page 9, in the case ot .Jewell, Auditor of the Canal Department. In. error, againat The People, State of New York The Conetitu tion of the State of iNew. York contains proviaione re strictive upon the Capacity or powerof the Legialature to xneiii public debt. TheLegislature deeming it, however, within its right to raise raoney for tbe corapletion, of the canals, npon a pledge of the canals' and their revenue, not inclriding what may be called the personal obligatinu of the State, undertook to raiae a loan of fix or ten milliona of d-^illars, and Mr. Newell, the Canal Auditor, when a draft was drawn upon hira, in his capacity as a rainisterial officer, and obeyaut to the law, refused to pay it, and raised the questiou whether this act was uncont>titu tioii al. Well, now, he ought to have been impeached ; he ought to have bad the Seuate and tho Court of Appeals convened on hira, and been removed from office. The idea of a more auditor setting himeelf up againet what the learned manager calla law? He act himself up iu favor of law, and againat ite contravention. ' The question was carried to the Suprerae Court of thnt State, and the court decided that the law waa constltii- tional: but, upon an appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court held it unconstitutional, and the six raillion loan was rolled away ae a scroll. Not*-, I would like to know if the •president of the united Statea— who has taken an oath to S reserve, protect and defend the Conatitution of the United tates— when a law ia pa.«eed over his hend, and he hae appealed to the Conatitution, thie Constitution ia to an awer through the House of Rop resentatives. We admit, -fbr argument, thatthe law is unconatitntional; we admit it bears on you and your just rights, and on nothing else; and we admit that yon have raieod the conatitutional question; yet such is -the peril under which you do that, that we will cut off your head for queationing an unconsti- tionsl law that bears upon vour rights and contravens that Conatitution that you have aworn to protect and de fend. How will our learned managers dispose of this case of Newell, the auditor, against the people ofthe State of New York, where an upright and faithful officer acted in the common Interest and for the raaintenance of the Consti tution? And are we euch bad citizens when we advise that the Constitutiou of the United States may be de fended, and that the President, without a breach of the Seace, and with an honeat purpose may raake a caae where le j udgraent of the court raay be had and fhe (Jonstitution austained? Why, not long aiuce the State of New York Sassed a law laying a tax ou brokers' sales in the city of [ew York, at a half or three-qu arters ner cent, on all fcoods that ahould be sold by brokers, aeefcing to raise for wie revenue purposes of the State of New York about ten millions of dollars ou tho brokers' aalcs of merohandise. which sales distributed, through the operationa of that toaporiiim, the commerce of- the whole country for con- suiUption through all the Statea of the Uuion. Your sugaV^'Vour tea, your coffee that you consume in the valley of the Mississippi, was to be made to pay a tax In the city of New York to support the State of New York in thie gigantic Bchenie, and they made It jlenal for any broker to sell them without giving a bond to pay it. Well, now, when all tbe brokers were in thia distress, I advised aomeof them that the shortest way to settle that matter was, not to give the bonds, and when one of the raost re spectable citizena of the State wae indicted bythe grand jury for aeJling coffee without giving a bond, and it cnme before the courts, according to ray advice, and I had tho foodfortune to be sustained in the Comt of Appeals ofthe tate of New York, in the proposition that the law was unconstitutional, and the indictment failed. Waa I a bad citizen for invoking the Conetitution of the United States aealuat theae infractiona of law? Was this defendant, In the indictment, a bad citizon fbrundiirtak- iDg to obe y the Constitution of the United States? Where are your constitutional decipiona? Look at the caae of Brbwmve.Mary land, the Banks tax casee, all theae iuBtaUces by which a cnnatitutlon is arrayed forthe protection of the rights of the citizon ; it is always by Inatances; it is always by big acts, and the only couditlon is, that it shall bo done without a breach of the peace and in good fnith. When Mr. Lincoln, before tho inaurrection had broken Sui, had issued the habeas corpus and undertook to arreat ae mischief that was going on at Key Weat, where. ttirough the form of peace, an attack waa made npon that tortand upon the governnient navy yard through the ha, T !f« corpua-an excellent way to take a foi-t- L^^^P^S"^""^ whether the honorable manager, tv hois r?»^n«?^^*V/?^' tried that in any of his military exno. SL*^f?^P-'W *°!;?.-°^.*^" ite soldiers, and it wae Buc- £®a1?iPI««'^""^^l*^; I^^ X"" ^ould havo been taken by Sote^»«°'^''"^' ^'^\ *-}}°-^ Preeident Lincoln euapended the habeas corpus, violating the law, violating the Conetitu. w?" t^Ti' ™ ^t^eceasarv that he ahonld be Inipeached? iJff W '^°io2i^ He suapended it by proclamation, on tho loth of May. 1861, and at the opening of the next aeHsion he referred to the fact of the illegality of the measurea in question, aaying they were ventured upon under public neceesitv, and _conmutted thera to the judgmentof Con gress I will give you another act of this great, heroic Preaident, the arrest of the membere of tho Legislature of Marylandi. never justified by any law that I know of, nor by the Constitution; and it so happens that the very atatement thero was, that "public action 13 to be^ judged by public men and public officers as pri vate actions are to be judged by private raen, according to the quality of the act," whether it shall be impeached or whether it ahall be iudemoified. I do not make this argiiraent as going fur^her than to meet the necessity which I underatand the honorable managers to put forth. that an infraction of a statute must carry out of office any Preaident of tho United States. Why the very next statute in this book, after the Civil Office Tenure act, on page 402, ie an act to declaro valid and conclusive certain proclamations pf the Preeideut, aud acta done iu purau ance thereof in the supresBion of the late Rebellion. The mihtary commissions had been declared invalid by the Suprerae CourU .and bere we have an act of inderanity. covering a raultitude of formal and technical sins, by in deranity and protection, to have the sarae effect aa if tbe law had been passed. If, therefore,. thia interpretation of law and duty, by their act unqualified, unacrutinized, unweighedi unmea^ surcd, 13 to make the- necessary occasion of a verdict of impeachment, it must be considered under the clear brlghtlight on which true sta'tesraanahip eheds upon the subject; We. as conveniently at thiS poiut as afterwards, pay some attention to the aBtronomical puniehraent which the learned and honorable manager, Mr. Boutwell, thinks should be applied to tho novel caee of impeachment. -Cicero. I think itia, who eays that a lawyer should know everything, for, eooner or later, there is no fact in historv, m science, or la human knowledge, that will not corae into play in his argument. Profoundly aenaible of my ignorance, being devoted to a profeasion, "which eharpeuB and does not enlarge the mind," I can admire without envying the supenor knowledge evinced by the honor able manager. But, nevertheless, while eorae of hie col leagues were paying attention to an unoccupied and un appropriated ialand ou the surface of the seas, Mr. Mana ger Boutwell, more arabitious, had discovered an un tenanted and unappropriated region iu the skies, (laugh ter) reserved, he would have ua think in the final coun cils of the Alraighty, aa a place of punishraent for cont victed and deposed American Presidents. (Laughter.) Now, at first, I thought that his raind had become so en larged that it waa not sharp enough to observe thatthe Constitution had limited the puniahraent (laughter), buton refiection, I saw that he waa as legal and logical as he was arabifious and astronomical, for the Conatitution has aaid, "reinoval from office," and has put no lirait to the diatance . of removal. (Great laughter.) So, without shedding a drop of hia blood, or taking a penny of his property, or ironing his limbs, he is sentenced to reinoval frora office and tr.ansportation to the pkies. (Laughter.) This ia the great undertaking, and if tho learned mauaeer can only get over the obstacle of the laws of nature, the Gonatltii- tion won't stand in the w.avi (Laughter.) I can think of uo method but that of a convulaion of the earth that ahould project the dppo^ed President to this in finitely distant spiice; but a shook of nature 'of so vaat an energy and so great a result raight uuecttle even the so firra raembers of Congreae.' (Laughter.) How shall we accomplish it? Why; in the first 'place, nobody knows where that apace Is but the learned manager himself (laughter), and he is the necessary deputy to eiecute the judgraent of fhe court. Let it then be provided, that in caee of your sentence of deposition and removal from office, the nonorable the na- trouomical raanager shall take into his own hands the execution of the sentence. With the Preeideut made fast to his bread and strong shoulderp. and haviug already essayed the flight, by imagination, better prepared to execute it in form, taking advantage of laddere, aa far as laddore would go, to the top of this high Capitol, and, spurning them with hia feet, from theGoddeea of Liberty let him eetout upon hia flight (Liughter), while tho Houaes of Congreas and all the people of the United Statea shall shout "Sicitur ad astra." (Laughter, loud add loug continued.) Here an oppressive doubt strikes rae ; how will the man ager get back? How when he gets beyoud the power of gravitation to restsre him, will he get back? And so ambi tious a wing as he "could never stoop to a downward flight. No doubt ashenasses through the expanse., that famous qvieetion of Cailyle, by which he liointa out the lit tleness or huraan affaira :— "What thinks Bootls of thera aa he leads his hunting dogs Over the zenith iu their leash of aideral tire," willoccur to the managers. What indeed would Boofis think of this, new constellation (laughter) looming through space, beyond the power of CoUgreser to Bend for persona and papevs? (Laughtol*.) Who shall return and now decide in the contest there 240 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOPNSON. begun in this new revolution thua established? Who shall decide Which ie'the sun and which ia the moon? Who shall deterraine the only scientific test, which reflects hard est upon the other? (Laughter). I wiah to draw your at tention to vv hat I regard aa an important part of my argu- me^ a matter of great concernraent and influence for all etatesmen and all lovers of the Constitution— to the par ticalar circumstances under which tbe two departments ofthe government now brought in controverey are placed, I speak uot of persons, but oi the actual, constant division of the two partiea. Now, tho office of President of the United Statea, in the view of tbe framera of the Constitution, tfie experience _of our national history, and in the estimation of the people, ia an office of great trust and povver. It ia not dependent on auy tenure of office, because the teuure of office is a source of original commiasion ; yet it is, aud is intended to be, an office of great authority, and the government. In its co-ordinate departraente, canuot be auatained without maintaining all the anthority that the Conetitution has intended for this Executive office; but it de- ?ends for its! place in - the Constitution upon the act that ita authority is committed to the suffrage of the people, and^ that when this authority is exerted, it is not by individual purpoee or will. Why the mere strength that a single individual cau oppoFC to the corrective power ofthe Congress of the United Statea? It is becauae the people, who, by their sufiraKO have raieed the President; to his place, are behind him, holding up hia hands, epeaktug with hia voice, suetaiuing him in hia .high duties, thatthe President has his voice uuder the Constitution, . Its great power ie safe thus to the peojile for the reasonff I have stated, and It ia safe to .the President becauae the people are beliind him, and have exhibited their confi dence in him by their suffrage, but when one is lifted to the Presidential office who has not received the sutlrage of the j)eople for that office, then at once discord; di-ilocation begins ; then at once the great powers of tlie oflico which are consonant with.a free Constitution and witb thepopu- lar will, and owea the very breath of Iif e to the continu ing power of the people; then it is that iu the cnticisms of the preas, in the viewa of the people, theee great powere, strictly within the Conetitution, eeem to be eapotic and personal ; and then you are subjectto another difficulty that our vicious ayatem of politica has introduced* and thatia that in our norainations for the two officee, selecting always the true leader of the popular aentiment of the time for the place of Preeieeut, we look about for a candidate fbr the Vice President to attract thn minority and to assuage difficulty 'and to bring in cousietent aup- portera. Coupled with this phase in our uoliticB, when the Vice President becomes Presidentof the Uuited States, not only is he iu the attitude of not havingthe popular snpport for the great powers of the Constitution, but of not having the authoritative support for the fidelity and raaintenance of hia authority. Theu, adhering to the original opinion and political attitudes which form the argument for placing him in the eecond plnce, ho is deunuuccd as a traitor to his party, and insulted aud crltlcieed by all the leaders of that party. I speak uot particularly in reference to the present in cumbcut, and the actual condition of parties hero, but all the public men, all the ambltioua inen. all the meu en gaged in the public eervice, and in carrying on the govern ment' In their own views and tbe interests aud duties of the party, all have formed these views aud established their relationa with the Preeident, who has disappeared, and they, then, are not Iu the attitude aud support, per sonal or political, that should properly be maintained among the leaders of n party. Then It is that ambitious men who bad formed the pur pose both for the present.and for the future, upon the faith of Preeidential nomination, find their calculations disturbed Then itis, that piudcnce and wiadom find that terrible evils threaten the conduct of tho goverument and the nation. This we all know by lookin/ back at the party differ ences in times paat, as in the time of the Prealdency of Mr. Tyler, when an impeachment was moved against hiin in the Houee of Representatives and had more than a him dred supporters, and it was found after it was aU over that thero was nothiug In the conduct ol Mr. Tyler to juatify it. So, too, a similar iraputation will be remembered iu the conduct of Ml'. Fillmore. Then tho oppoaltlou acize upon this opportunity, enter into the controversy, urged on the quarrel, but do not espouBO it, and thus it ended In tho President being left without the support of the guarantees of authority wnich underlie and vivify the Constitutiou of the United Statea, namely, fho favor of the people ; aud eo, vvhen this nijfor. tiinate^ thia Irregular condition of the Executive office con curs with a tiine of great nationnl conjointure, then, at once, you have at work the apecial or pecuHar operation of forces upon the Executive office, which the Conetitution left unprotected and undefended with the full raeasure of support which evory department of tho government wionld have in order to resist the others, preeeing on lo dangcra and difficulties which may shake and bring down the pillars of tho Constitution itself. I euggest theu to you, as v. lae men, that you nnderstaud how out of circum- FtancoB lor which, as man is reapousible, attributable to tlio workmffs of the Constitntion itself., thore is a weak ness, and a special weakness, iu the Presidency of tho Lnited States, which ia, as it were, an undefended fort, nnd to sen to it that an invasion is not urged and made Buccc5Bful, bv the teraptation that ia presented. lliig exceptional weakneaB of the President, under our Constitutiout IB accompanied, in the present Btate lOt affaira, by' the extraordinary development of party etrength in Congrese, There are. in the Constitution, but three barriers against tbe will of a majority in Congi-eeE^ One is' that which requireB a two-thirds vote to expel a member of either House; another la -thata tvvo^thirds vote is neccsary to pass a law over the objections of the Prt-Bident, and the third is that a two-thirds vote of the Senate, sitting aa a court for the tnal of impeachment, IB necessary for conviction. And now theae last two protei> tions of the Executive office have disappeared frora the Constitution, iu ita practical working, by tbe condition of partiea, which has given to one tho jirm possessifen. by three-fourths, I think, in both houses, of the control of ti^ government, of each of the other branchea of the govertz ment. Reflect upon this. ,. , . . *x. **,. I do not touch upon the particular circumstance that tM non-reetoration ot the Starea has left the membere m both Houaep lees than they might under other circumatances bsj I do not calculate on whether tliat absence increases or_dii- miniahes the proportion that there would'bemparbeiti Poesiblv their presence raight even aggravate the political majority which overrides practically, on the calculatttma ofthe Preaidfeut's protection, in the guarantecB ottheCtai* stitution. What did the two-thirds mean? It raeant that, iu a free couutry where intelligence ia dinuircdit wasima possible to suppose that there would not be a aoraewh:^ equal diviaion of parties. It wae impo=»ible to suppose that the exciteraent and zeal of pnrty would carry all the raembers of it into any extravagjincies. I do uot call them extravagancies in any senae of reproach. I merely speak aB to the extrerae measures which parties may be disposed Certainly, then, there is ground to reflect before brining to tho determination thia great struggle between the co ordinate branches of the government, whether the co-or dination in the Conatitution cau be preaervcd, or whether it is better 10 urge, a teat which may operate upon 'the framework of the Constitution and npon its future, una^ tended bv any exception of a peculiar nature which go verns tbe actual situation. Ah, that is the misery of human affairs— that difltresBpa corae when the fystem^ia least prepared to receive it. It ia misery that disease ins. vades the form when health is depreseed n-ud the powera of the constitution to reeist it are atthe lowest ebb; itis miser.y that the gale rises and Bweepa the sliip to deBtruo^' tiou vvhen ther^ ia no rea rcom for it, and vvhen it is on a lee shore, aud if concurrently with theso dangers to tho §ocd ship her crew be short, and her helm unsettled, 'and isorder begins to prevail, and there cornea to be a final'utrug- gle for the maintenance of mastery against the clement^ now wretched Isthe condition of that people whose for tunes are embarked in thnt ship of State. What other protection is there for fhe Preaidential oflico but these two-third guarantees of the Constitution and the Suprenie Court, placed there to dcteruiiue the lines of aeparatlon, and of duty, and of power under our Constitution, )b» tween the Legislature and the Preaident. Under thero^ dence propoeed and rcjected^the effort of the Presldenffi waa, when the two-thirds majority had urged the contest ' against him, to raise a case for t::e Suorcme Court to de cide, and then the Legislature, coming in by its apecial jurisdiction of impeachment, intercepts his effdrta, aud brings his head again within the mere power of CoagreeSi where the tTO-thirds rule is equally ineffectual aa between the parties to the conteat. This is a matter df grave import, of grave consideration, and is to bc iu the eye of history oue of the deterraining evideuces of this great controveray; for, great as ia the question in tho wiedom of the managers and of ourselves, and in the public intelligence of the people, as to how great tho power shall be ou one Bide or the other— with Congresfl or with the President— that qiieBtlon sipka into absoluto insignificance compared with tho greater .and higher question— fiie queetiou which has been in the minda of officers, and publicists and statesraen eince our Constitution was founded— whether it was in the power of a written Coustitutiou to draw lines of separation, and to put up buttresses of defense between co-ordinate 'branehea of the governments With that question settled adversely, with the determi natiou that one can dcyour,.and, having the power, will devour the other— theu the faalaucea of the Araerican Con^ et-itutlou are loet, aud lo^ for ever. No one caU reinstate in paper what has once been struck down in fact. Mai^ kind is governed^ by inatances, not by resolutions. Then there ia placed before the people of tho country an attempt fo establish new balancus of power, by which tho powera 'of tho different departments, being more firmly, fixca^ one can be eafe against the other, but who cah be wiser than our fathers ; who greater, .-' whjp juster than they; who more considerate and more diaintercstcd than they, and If their descendants had ndt tho virtue to uiaintalu what they so w^ely and so nobly established, how cau these aarao dCBccndants hope to have tho virtueor.the wis¬dora tomnkeabetterestaDllBh- ' raent fbr their posterity? Now. Senatora, I urge upou you to consider wnether you will not recoil from BCttllng so trcmcndouB a aubject, under ao apecial, so dis advantageous, so dlsnacrous circumstances as I have portrayed to you? A strong. Executive, nu absolute veto, with a longer terra, with moro permauent poeseasioii and control of ofiicial patrouag^'ill bo necessary »if the V, ise. and juat, and considerate measures of our anceston^ shall not be allowed to prevail in your judgments. Or, ii that be diefasteful, unacceptable, inadmissablo. then wjb will awing out all to the omnipotonce of Congrosb, and^ro- tui-u to the exploded expcrimctit of the Confederation, where Congi-css vvas Executive and Legislative all at onoe. Thereis ono. otbei' general topic whichis aot to be left IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON! 241 nunoticcd, on account of tho very pcrious imprepsion it brings npon the political eituation which forras a staple of pressure on the part of the managers. I mean the very peculiar political situation of the country itst-lf. The sup- pression of the anued rebellion, and the reduction of the Vovoltt'd StateB to tho power of the government, left a problem of as great dimciilty in human affairs aa was ever proposed to the action of any governmeut. The work of pacification after so gi-eat a struggle, whert 90 great paBBioua were enlisted, so great wounda had been inttlcted; whore eo great diacontenta had originated con troversies, nnd 80 much bitterness prevailed, ita formal set tlement preeeuted a work of great dilficulty, but there con curred with it a special circumstance, which by Itaelf would have taken all the resourcea of atatesmanshlp- 1 mean thp (?maucipation of the alavea— which had thrown four raillions of men, not by the process of peace, but by tlie sudden blow of war, into the posaeaaion of their free dom ; vv hich had placed at once, and against their vvill, all the rest of the population under those who bad been their davcs. Now, the process of adaptation of society and of law to BO great a eocial change as that, even vvhen accoraplished iu peace, and when uot disturbed by the proceasca of war and' by the discontent of a suppreseed rebellion, waa so much as any courage or any property as is given to any gpveruinent can expect to carrv through auccessfully. Wlien theae two gi-eat political facts concur and press npon a government, how vast, how difficult, how imprac ticable and unmanageable ecems the posture of affairs. But this docs not represent the measure, or even the prin- ctpiil feature of the aifficulty. When the governnient, whose arms hftd triumphed and awppressed resistance, is itself, by the theory and actiou of the Constitutiou, the government which by .positive law ia to maintain Its authority, the process is simple; but under our complete governmeut the restored Con atitution surrenders their domestic affairs at once to the local governments of tbe people who have been in Echellinn. Aud then arises the queation— What has formed the atapleof our politics for the laat four years— what has tried the wiedom, the courage, the patriot ism of all ? The question ia, how far, under the Consti tution aa it stands, tho General Government can exer- (dae absoluto control in the transition period between war and peace, and how much foundto be thuwemanage- ablo should be committed to the changes in tho Consti tution. When we underetand that the great controverey in.the formation of the Constitution itself, was how far tho General Government should be intrusted with the domestic concerns, aud that the people of the States were not willing to intrust the General Grovernmcut with their doraestic interesta. We eee at once how wide, how dah- gerouB, how difficult isthe arena of the controversy of conatitutional law, and of diff'erences of opflaiou as to wbat was or Is constitutional, and as to what chauges should be, 01" ought to be made in tho Constitution to meet the pracii- calaituatlou. When vou add that the people are divided ou theae questione, and aa .the pai-ties of force on one side. and on the other are the loyal .masses and the Rebel masees. and whoever divicjcb from hia neighbor, frora hia associates, from his party adherents In thislino of consti tutional opinion, and in thia lino of eovernmcptal actiou, which seems to press the least changes ou the Constitu tion, aud the least control on the masses lafcly In Rebel lion, will be suspected and charged as an ally of traitors and Rebels. You have at once disclosed how the naraes of traitor and of Rebel, which belong^ed to the war, have been made the current phraaes of political djaciiaaion. I do not question the rectitude, nor do I question the wisdora of any positiorfs that have been taken as matter of argument, aa matter of faith, or as raatter of action in the dis position of this peculiar situation. I only at tract your attention to the neceeeities and dan gers df tho eituation itself, both in reference to public order aud in reference to the changed condition of tiio elave. We were urged *'stave. super vias antiquas^ It is uot the question of standing upon anclint ways, for wo are not on thera. The probleUi of the eituation is, as it was then, how to eet ou the ancient waya from those paths which disorder and violence and rebellion bad forced us into, nnd here It vvas that the exaaperations of politica came Up, mingled with charges of infidelity to party, and of moral and political treaeou to the State. How many theories did we have In this Seuate? If I am not miatakeu, que very infiuentiarl, aiid able and eloquent Senator was dlBpoBeu to take the declaration of independence in the working forces of our Constitution aa a sort of free censti- tutiou. In the other Houee a great leader was dispoaed to treat it ou the trans-constitutional neceasltles which the rituatiou itaelf iraposed. And thus it waa that minds trained In tho old school, attached to the Conatitution. were unable aa orators and aB reasonera, to adopt theso learned phrav^ca, Aud now let me urge It, that all this is withm the pro vince of politica, nnd free governraeuta would bc unwor thy of their freedora, and could 'not maintain it if their public Bcrvants, thoir public men, their choeeu seryante, were not able to draw the distinction between legal cpu- BTltutional offenses and odioue and abominable faulta. Wheu passions and struggles of force, in any form of vio lence, or of impeachment aa an engine of power come into play, then freedom has becoine license, and theu party has oecome faction. I hold in my bauds an article fi'om the Tribune, written in reference to this trial, and put with great forco and skill. I do not propose to read it. I bring ft hero to ehow, and to say that it is an excellent aenoa of ali-ticles of impeachment againat the President o* the Unitad States, withiu the forum of pwitics, for poUtical repugnance and obstruction, and aa an honeat convicti. in that tlie"technical and fotmai crilnee imputed in tlio iJr ti des before this court are of but paltry couf'idcration. Novv, that IS an excellent article of irapeachment for tho forum of politics, and for dlacUeeion at the huptinsra. Ihere it belongs, there it must be taken. But tbi.n being a court, we are not to be tried for that of which we are not charged. How wretched the condition of him v^ho i^ to -bo oppressed by vngue, uncertain shadows, which ho can not resist. Our honorable managers muet go back to th& Bourceof their authority If they would obtain what wae once denied them— a general and open political charge. It muat, I know, be maintainable In law, it muat be main tainable in fact ; but then it would he brought here, it would bo written down, itfl dimenaions would ne known and understood, its weight would be estimated. The anawer could be raade, and then your leisure and that of the nation being occuplpd with hearing witnesaes about politicftl difficulties, aud queiitlons of pcllitical repugnance, and political obatriiction ou tho part of the Preaident, we Should be heaid in hia defense in that political trial, and would at least havo the opportqnity of reducing the force of the testiraony, and of bringing in the oppoalng aud con troverting prowfs. Then atleast, if you would have a political trial, there would'he something subBtantial to work upon. But the Id^ that the Preeident of the United Stntes is to be brought into the procedure of thia court by a limited accusation, and be found not guilty under that, but bc convicted undei an Indictment which tne Houae refused to sustain, or un der that wider indictment which the newspaper preas pre sent, aud without an opportunity to bring proof and to raake ai;gument on the subject, seems to us too raonstrous for any intelUgence within or without this political circle, thia arena of controversy, to raaintain for a moment. My hopo hasbeen briefly to draw your attention to what lies atthe baaia of the discussion of the power and authority that may be rigbtfully exercised, or reasonably aspumed to be ex»rcised, by the Presidebt, between these two branches ofthe government. The co-ordination of the powers of the government ia not one of the greatest efforta iu the frame ofa paper conatitu tion, butl think itmuat be conceded that as it occupies the main portion of the Constitutiou iteelf, so it hna been re- Rarded by all competeut critics at horae and abroad tohave been a work most successfully accomplished by the fraraera of our governmet. Indeed if you wjll look at the CoustitUr tiou, you will find that beyond that limit of defining- what belongs to the govornment and vvhat must be left to the libertiea of the people, and then dlscriininating between .w hat should be accorded to the General Government and what ehould be left to the domestic government of the States. The vvhole effort of the Constitution is to build up these jhrde departmenta of the government, bo that each ahouliS have strength to stand against the others, and not strength to encroach upou or overthrow the othere. Much has been said about Congrcf^s being the great de- poaitor of power. Why, of course it Is; it Is the deposi tor of power and of will. Congresa must be Intrusted with all the strings of power, and, tnerefore, the effort of.the Constitution waa to curb and restrain the exorcise of that power by Congress, and so you find that ahnost all the additions to the Constitu tion are based upon Congress, restraining it frora exercising power over the people, or over the Statoe, or o^'er the co ordinate branches of the governraent. Nevertheleaa, there ie an absolute and neceaaary deposit of authority iu Con- crees. It is left master of thewhole. To what purpose is it to provide that the judges of the Supreme Court shall hold their aJlicea for life, and tiiat their aalarles ehall not be diinini?iied during their tenn of aerviee, if Congress may omit or refuae to appropriate a dollar for the salary of that particular judge? Neverthelees government ia to be adrainistered by raeu. and in an elective" government the trust is that the elected aigents of the people-will be- faithfiil to their Interests, But ¦ simple as is the instituti'm of the judiciary, when you come to the executive authority, then coinea the problem which haa puzzled, and which will puzzle all fraraora of governraent haviug no knowledge or idea of authority ex cept what springs frora tlie people. Under tho British Constitution there is no difiicul ty in tracing up the Parlia ment, provided you leave standing the authority of the barons. But here the problom is, Aoio is it without the Buppoi t of the nobles ? You can raake an executive atrong enough to maintain itfielf by fhe balance, aa itia found in the Constitution. Our ancestors diapoaed of that queetiou. it haa served us till this- time. Sometimes iu the heat of party the Executive has seemed too strong. Sometimes, inthe heat o9 party, Congreee has aeemed too strong;,yet every danger passes away, and the government Is adminiatered, controlled, protected by thq great euperiorpredominaut iutereat and power ofthe people themeelvee, Tho essence of the Constitution is, that there is no period of authority granted by it iu the aix years' terra to tho Senate, in the four years' terra to the Preai- dent, aud in tlio two years' term to the Houae of Repre sentatives, that cannot' be lived through in patiencci subordinate and obedient, td the Constitution. As it waa aaid in the debate in the Convention on a particular topic of impeachment, there will be no danger when a four years' occurring election reatorea to the cominon ma.=5ter of Congrees and of the Executive the trust repoeed In them. In connection with thia part of his argument, Mr. Evarta read two extracts frora speeches of Mr. Webster, and then, on raotion of Senator Coukling, the court adjourned till twelve o'clock tomorrow. . 242 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW J^OHNSON. PROCEEDINGS OF THURSDAY, APRIL 30. Thq Chief Justice stated the^rstbusinesB to be the order offered by Senator Sumner.yesterday, censuring Mr. Nelson, of couneel, for words spoken in discna- Bion, iutended to provoke a duel, or signifying a wil lingness to fight a duel, and contrary to good morals. Seuator JOHNSON movftdto lay tbe order on the table. Sumner on Nelson. Senator SUMNER said on that I ask the yeas and naya. The yeae and nays were ordered- "When Senator Anthony's name was called he said:— Mr. President, I would like to ask the connsel a question. I would ask him if in the remarks quoted in the resolution it was bis intention to challenge tbe honorable manager to mortjil combat. (Laughter*) Nelson Belligerent. ¦ Mr. NELSON— Mr. ChiefJustice, it is a yery difficult question for rae to answer. Duriugthe recess of the Seuate. the honorable gentleraan reraaiked to me that he was going to say eoraethlug on the subject of Alta Vela, and deaired me to remain. He then directed his remarks to the Senate. I regarded thera aa charging me with dia- Jionorable couduct before the Senate, and in the heat of the diecuBsion, I made use of language which was intended to aignify that I hurled back the gentleman's charge upon tiim, and that I would answer the charge in any way that he decided to call me toaccount for it. I c annot say that I had a duel iu my mind ; I am not a duellat by profession. Nevertheless, my idea was that I would answer the gen tlemen in any way that he chose. 1 5id not intend to claim auy exeraption ou account of age, or anything else. I hope the Senate will recollect the circumstancea. I have treated the gentleman with the utraost kindneaa nnd politeness, and gave marked attention to what he said, and to insult the Senate was an idea that uever entered my mind. I entertain the kindest feeling towards the Senate, and would be as far as any man on the face of the earth, frora insulting the gentlemen of the .Senate, whoni I was ad dresaing. The motion to lay on the table waa agreed to by tbe fol lowing vote:— '^ The Tote* ' Yeas.— Messr a. Anthony, Bayard. Buckalew, Cattell Chandlar, , Corbet, .Cragiuj Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Feaaenden, Fowler, Frellneuyeen, Grimes, Harlan, Hendricks, Howe, Johnaon, Morrill (Me.), Morton, N.orton, Patteraon (N. H^), Patteraon (Tenn.j, Rameey, Robb. Saulsbury, Sherman, Tipton, Trumbull, yan Winkle, "vickers and Williame- 35. . Nays.— Measrs. Cameron, Howard, Morgan. Morrill (Vt.), Pomeroy. Stewart, Suraner, Thayer, Wilson and Yatea— 10. So the order was laid on the table. TheChief Justice then stated that the nextbusineas to the consiaeratioh of Mi'. Cainerob'a order, . offered yester day, that the Senate hereafter hold sessions from 8 P. M. lo li P. M. . .. , Senator SUMNER offered the following asa shbstltute:— Ordered, That the Senate will iJit during the remainder of the trial from 10 o'clock In the forenopn till 3 o?clopk iu the afternoon, with such brief receas ae may be ordered. * Senator TRUMBULL moved to lay the whole subject on the table, which waa agreed to .by the followiug vote :— Yeas.— Messra. Autuony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cattell, Corbet, Davie, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Ferry. Feaaenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Howe, John son, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (yt,), Morton, Nor ton, Patterson (N. HO, Pattereon (Tenn.), Rameey,' Rose, Saulebury, Sprague, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey and Vickere- 32. Nays.— Meesra. Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Cragin, Edmunda, Harlau. Hovvard, Morgan, Ramsev, Sherman, Stewart, Sumuer, Thayer, Tipton, Williama, Wilaon and YatGB^l?., And the subject wae laid on the table. Mr. Evarts Resumes. Mr. EVARTS then proceeded with his argument, aa fol lows ;— We perceive, then, Mr. Chief Justice aud Senators, that the aubiect out of which, this coflti-overaj' has arisen be tween the two branches of the goverument— the executive and legislative— touches the very foundations of the ba lance of power in the Constitution"! aud in the argu ments of the honorable managers it has to some extent been BO pressed upon j'our attention. You have been made to belieVe, so mishty and important is thia point in the controverBy—the arrogation of the power of office included in the function of removal— that it It is carried to the cre dit of the Executive Departmeut of government,' it makes ft a monarchy. Why, Mr. Chief Justice ftnd Senators, what a grave re- pi'oach is thia njpon the wisdom and foresight, the civil prudence of our anccators, that has left unenralned audi unucplored aud unsatistied, these doubts or measures of the strength of the Executive, Upon ao aevere a test or inquiry of being a monarchy, or a free republic. I aah, without reading the whole of it, your attention to a passage from the Federalist, one of the papers by Alexaa- der Hamilton, who felt iu advance theee aapersions that are sought to be placed upon thp establishment of tha executive power in the President. _ / , He then suggests in brief the solid.diacriraination and dis. *inction between the Preeident'aud a monarchy, and con cludes by saving this, "What answerBhall we give to those who would persuade that things unlike reaerable each other ? The sarae that ought to be giveu to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which is to he in the hands of the executive aud judicial servants *f the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy and a despotuih." But a littlecloser attention to both the historyof the fram. ing of the Constitution, and to the opinion? which maiiw tained n conteat iu the body of the Convention— whicli should finally determine the general character and nature of the Constitution— will show us that this matter of the power of removal or' the conti-ol of ofnce aa ia dispute between the Preeident aud- the Senate, touches more nearly one of the other great balances of the ^onsti? tution. I mean that that balance between the weight of numbers in the people and the equality of the States, itre' apectlve of population, of wealth, and ot size. Here it % ifl maybe allowed to aay bo : thatthe opiniouB to which public attention was drawn by the honorable manager, Mr. Boutwell— the opinious of Mr. Sherm,an.and tneii origin, oue of the greatest atateeraeu ofthe laet generation— aajd to me that it was to Mr. Sherman, aud to hia youug 'coll6ague, Mr. Elleworth, "and to Judge, Patterson, of New Jeraey, that we owed it more than all else, in thatCon- vention, that our government Was made what that atatear mau pronounced the best govei-nraent in the worldj-a Fed eral Republic ; instead of being what it would have been butfor theae members of the Convention, aa thia Btatea man ofthe last generation exjireaaed it— a consolidated empire, the worat goverument in the world. "And uow between, these two opinione it was the" con troversy whether the Senate should be adraitted into a share of executive l^ower of appointment. The gi^eat arm, the strength of the goverument came in play, and on tbis question of the equality of the States Mr. Sherman iu- eisted that this participation should be reserved to tho Seuate. which othera resisted as too great ?a subtraction frora the sum of executive power to be safe. In this diein- tegration and frittering away, Mr. Adams, the first Presi dent under the ConBtitution, I am informed upon autho- rity not doubted, bringing It to me from the opinions from his friends, did, in the opinion that participation in ap pointment, aa conatrued and maintained In the practice of thia governraent, would be the point upou which the CMt- Btitution would fail; that the allotting of powerto a coia- paratively irreaponsible administration in the Senate wouldultlmately BO destroy the strength of the Executive with the people, and create ao great a diacouteht among tbe people theraselvea with' the Executive of their owh choice ; that they would uot submit to the executi\« power thus bestowed, if given to a ISody that had its con- Stitution without any popular election whatever, iand where ita baflia aud strength came, not by the strengtli and power of the people, but by the eq_u ality of tho Statea. -When you add to that this change which gave tho Senate a voice in the removal from office, and then gave it the first hold upon the question of the weight of ofucial power in the country, you change wholly the question of the Cou Btitution, and Inetead of giving the Senate only tho ad visory course which that instrument commits to It, yon change it into the absolute preliminary power of that body to say to the Executive of the United Statea that every adrainistrative office under him shall remain as it iaj . that the officers shall be oveifhim and against him, and that they will be with the Senate and for the Senate^ and when you add to that the power of the Senate to sav tiiat "uutil we know and deterraine who the succcaaor vrill m, we hold the reins of power, ao that the office shall not he ya- cated," theu you do indeed break dowu at once the balance between the Executive and the legielative power, and yoU break down the Federal election of the Prerident at oiice, and commit to the equality of States the partition ana distribution ofthe executive power of thia couutry. I would like to know how it ie that the peoples of the country K-e to be made to adopt this principle of the Con etitution, that the Executive power attributed to federal meinptera, made up of Senators nnd Repreaentatives added together from each Statei that tliat executive power, which the people supposed was Involved in its choice ol President, is to be administered aud controlled by a body made up of the equality of States. I would like to kuow on wbat plan of politics it ifl to be carried out. How can you make the combination? How the forces; how^the effects, which aie to-clothe themeelvoB into a popular election, and then to find that the executive power 13 already administered on the principle of.the equality of States. I should like to kuow how it is that ^^r^TX"^^' ^^^ Pennsvlvania, and Ohio, and Indiana, and Illinois, aud Miasouri, and the great and growing States are to c-rry the force of popular will into the exe cutive chair, on federal merabers in the electoral college, and then find that Maryl^d and Delaware and the da- taut Statea unpeopled, are to control the whole posaesaion and administration of the'execntive power. * Ji 1 i- -: — .¦ — '¦'¦ "*" power «io.« ao w^ — ted to lum in a partition of it between the States, without regard tp uumbore or popular opimon ; thore is the grave dislocation of the balances of l^e Constitution. Tl^re ^ IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 243 the absolute destruction •f the power oi the people over Presidential authority, keeping up the forra ofthe election while depriving it of all its results; and I would like to know if by what law or by what reaaou thia body assumes to itaelf this derangement of the balances of the Conatitu tion, as hetween the Statea and popular uuinbera, how long Now England can maiutain in its Bharo of executive power af> adminisfered htfre, as large a proportion as belonga to New York, to Pennsylvania, to Ohio, to Indiana, to Illi- noia and to MIsaouri together? I muat think, Mr. Chief Juatice and Senators, tbat it has notbeen sufficiently considered how far these principlea, thua debated, reach, and bow the framers of the Consti tution, wheu they came to dehate,iu the year 1789, in Con gresB, afi to what wae or ehould be the actual and practical allocation of that authority, underetood the queetlon in ita bearing, nnd in ita future neceeeities. True, indeed, that Mr, Sherman was always a stem and persistent ad vocate for the strength of the Senate, as against the power of the Executive, It was on that point that the Senate lepreBcnted the equality of States, and be and Mr. Ells worth, holding their places in the Convention as the representatives of Connecticut, a small State, between the powerful State of MassachuaettB on the one aide, and of uew York ou the other, and Judge Patters'on, of New Jeraey, a representative of that State, a amall State, be tween the great State of New York on the one side, nnd the great State ot Peunaylvania on the other, were ¦the advocates of that distribution of power iu the Senate, and it is well' known iu the . ^tory of the tiraQs tliat a correspondence of aome im portance took place between fho elder Mr. Adaraa and Mr. eberraan, iu the early days of the working of the govern ment, as to whether the fears of Mr. Adams, that the Exe cntive should prove too weak, or the nnrpose of Mr. Sher man that tbe Senate should be etrong enough, were or were not most in accordance with the principles of the govemment. But all that wns based upon the idea that the the incurabent, from Which he can be removed under no stress of-the public neceesity, unless by the fact 'occurring of a complete ap pointraent for the permauent tenure ofa succcaaor, con curred iu by the Senate, and mr.de operative by tho new appointee going there and qualifying nimselfiu the office. Now this aeema, at the first sight, a very extraordinary provision for all the exigencies of a govei-nment like oura, witb its forty thousand oflicers, whose liat is paraded here before you, with their twenty-one milliona of emoluments, to ahow the magnitude of the great prize contended for between the Preeidency and the Senate. It ie a very sin gular provision, doubtlosB. that in a governraent which in- cludeB under it fortv thousand officers, there ehould be no constitutional possibility of stopping a raan in or remov ing him from an oflicp, except by the deliberate suc- ceaslou of a perraanent successor, approved by the 'Senate and concurred in by the appointee himself going to the place and qualifying and aesuming is duty. I speak tho language of the act;— "While the Senate is in sesaion, there ia not any power of teraporary auepeneion or arrest of fraud, of violence, of danger, or of raenace to the govemment by aitpfficer : when the 'Senate is in recess there, is a power of suspension given to the Executive, and we aro better off in that respect when the Senato is in rece^ thau when it ia in seflslon, for the Preeideut can, bv a definite aud appropriate action, ar- rcrtt the raiacouducj^f au officer by hia suspenaion. But, as I Baid before, I repclk it, under this act tlio incurabeuts of all those officea havHi permauent estate In them till a ane- ¦ceaaor, with vour consent and his own, is inducted into the office. Now I do not propose to discuss, as quite unnecessary to any dt-ci^on of any matter to -be brought iu ou your judgment, at anv great length the queetion of the uuconetitution- ality of that law. A very deliberate expression of opinion, after a very deliberate and thorough debate, conducted in this body-, in which the reasons of each aide were ably maintained by your most diBtlnguIehed meuibera, and after a very thorough consideration in-the House of Representa tivee, where able and eminent lawyers, Borae of whora appear among the managera, gave tho country the benefit of their knowledge and their acuteness, has placed this matter as the legislative judement of its couatitutionality : but I think all vviU agree that a legialative judgraent of couatitutionality doea not conclude, a court,; and that. while legialative judgraents have differed, aud while the practice of the Government for eighty years hae heen on one aide, and (he new ideas introduced are confeaaedly a reversal and a revolution of that practlee. It is uot aaying too much to say, that after the expreaaion of the legialative will, and after the opiuion of tho legislature in its action, thero yet would remain for debate, among jurieta and lawyers, among etateamen, araongthoughtful citizena, aud certainly properly within the province ofthe Supreme Court of the United States, the queation whether tho one or the other construction of the Conatitutiou waa vital ttt its infiuence on the goverument— Waa the safe and cor rect course for ihe conduct of the government. Let rae aek your attention for a moraent to the queation, as pre- aenting itself to the rainds of Seuators, as to whether this was or was nbt arevei-aalandrevolutlon ofthe practice and theory of the government, and also aa to the weight of a legislative opinion. Mr. Evarta here quoted from tho debate which took place iu the Senate on the Civil Tenure act, the romarka of Senator Williama, of Oregon, to the effect that the bill un dertook to reverse what had heVctofore been the admitted {iractice of tho government, and the President should at east havo the eelection of hie Cabinet officere. Mr. EVARTS th^u continued- Thia Senator touches the very marrow of the matter, that when you were paaaing this bill, which, in the whole official service of the coun try, reverses the practice of The government, you should at leaat leave the Executive all the Cabiuet officers; the point was on leaving tliem In the bill as an exception. It was a reversal of the practice of the govemraent as to all the rest of the officers, and the arguraent was that the Cabinet shonld he left na they were, because, as the Sena tor aaid wisely, "tho country will hold the Executive re aponsibie for what hie Cabinet does,*' and the country will BO hold hira till the people f^nd out that you have robbed the Executive of all reapouBibilit.y by robbing it of what is the pith of respouaibility— discretion. Mr, EVARTS read some further extracts from the re marks of Senator Williams on that occasion, and also from the reraarks of Senator Howard, who admitted the practice of the goverument in regard to appointments and removala, and reminded the Seuate that that claim df SOTver ou the part of the Executive had been inforraally eoided by aorae of the beat minds of the country. Mr, Emrts continued :— And no.w as to the we^ht pf iriere legislative construction, even in the mind of' the^legi3l& ture Itaelf, aa corapared withother sources of authprltatlve deterraination, let me ask your attention to aome very pertiuent obeervations of the honorably Senator from Oregon (Mr, Williams.) Thoee who advocate the Execu tive power of removal rely altogether on the legielative construction of the Constitution, sustained by the practice aud opinions of individual raen. I need not argue that a legislative construction of the Couatitution has uo hindiug force. It is to be treated with prqper respect. But few constructioue have been put on the Conatitution at oue time that have hot been modified or overruled at another or Bubaeguent time, ao that, so far as the legielative conatruction of the Goustitution ou this queation ia con cerned, it is entitled to very little consideration. Now the poiut in debate was that the legislative construction of 1789, as worked into the bouea ofthe government, by the indura ting proceas of practice aud exercise, was a kind of po^yer- f ul influeuce on the matter, and yet the honorable Senator from Oregon justly puehea the propoaition that legislative construction per se la entitled to very little consideration — that it has no binding force. Well, ehall we be told that a legislative construction of March 2, 1867, and the practice under it of one year, which haa brought the Congresa face to face with the Administration and introduced the eword of iuipeachment between the two branches ou a removal from office, raising tho precise questiou that au attempt by the President to remove a secretary and appoint an ad interim to discharge its duties, is to result in a removal by ¦the Senate of tlie Executive itself, and in an appointment of one of its own members for the ad interim diacharge of the dutiea of the Presidency? Now, that is the usual mode bv recent legielative conatruction. But tho honor able Senator from Oregon, with great force and wiedora, ns it aeema to me, proceeded iu the debate to eay that the courts of law, the Suprerae Court of the United States, wae the place to look for authoritative and permanent de termination of the queation at issue ; and it will be found that iu that he but foUowed the wisdom ahown in the 'debate of 1789, and iu .the final reault of it, in which Mr. Sherraan concurred as much as any mem ber of that Congress, that it was not for Congress to name or tb aaaign the limits of Executive power by eanctinent, nor to appropriate and confer Executive power by endowment, through an net of Congrese. but to leave it as Mr. White, of North Carolina, said, and aa Mr. Gerry, of Massachuaetts, said, and as Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, said, to the Constitutiou itself to operate on the Foreign Secretary's act, and to let the action be mada under it by virtue of a claira of right uuder the Constitu tion, and whoever Was aggrieved let him raise the ques tibn in the courts of law ou that resolution, and ou that situation of things the final vote was taken, a^ the matter was dispoBed of in that Congreas. But tbat it waa tbeUi 244 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. auA ever since, bas been regarded as an authentic and authoritative determination, b.v that Congress, that the power was u the President; and that it hasbeen so iu- Blstcd upon, BO acted upon ever since, and that nobody haa baen aggrieved, and that nobody has raised the queatlon in the courts of law; that ia the force and the weight of a resolution of that firat Congreas, and of the practice of the governmeut under it. , In the House of Repreaentaf ives, alao, there waa a de bate on the contc&ted point in the bill, and one of the best lawers iu that body, as I underafaud, by repute— Mr. Wil liams, one ofthe honorable managera- m hia arguraeut for the bill, said :— It aims at the reformation of a ^iant vice in the adrainistration of thia government, by bringing ita practice back from the rule of its infancy and Inexperience. He thought it was a faulty practice, but that it was a prac tice of the government from ita infancy to the day of the paaaage of the bill ; that it was a vice inherent in the sys tem and exercising power over ita action, he had no doubt. He adinlta subseauently, iu the earae debate, that the Congrcsa of 1789 decided, and that it eucqeseors for three- qnartera of a century acquiesced in that doctrine. I will not weai-y the Senate with a thorough analysis of the debate of 1789. It is, I believe, decidedly tJie raost ira- fiortaut debate In the history of Congress, It is, I .think, he beat considered debate in the history of : the go vernraent. I think it included among its debaters as many of the able, wise and learned men, the benefit of whoae public service this nation has -ever enjoy.'d, aa any debate ^ raeasure which thia govern meut has ever had or entertained. The promleea In the Constitutiou were very narrajv. The question of reraoval from office, as a diatinct subject, had never occurred to the minds of the men of the Convention. The tenure of office was not to be made pcnnanentexcept in thecase of Judges ofthe Suprerae Court, The periodicity of Congress, ofthe Senate, andof the Executive waa fixed. Then therewas au attribution of the whole interior adminlatrative official powers of the government to the Executive, with'the single qualification, exceptional in itaelf, that the advice and coneentof the Seuate should be required as a negative on. tbe President'e nomination. Now, the point raiaed was exactly tbia— it may be very briefly stated— Those who, with Mr. Sherman, malutaiued that the concurrence of the Senate in removal waa as ne cesaary aa it concurrence in appointraent, supported thera- eelveB with the propositiou that the aame power which ap- ttointed should have the reraoval. That was a little begdug of tho qnestion— speaking it with all respect— as to who the appointing power waa really, under the terms and under the intent ofthe Conatitution. But, concurring that the connection of the Senate with the matter really made it a part of the appointing power, the auawer to the argument— triumphant as it seeras to rae-r as it came frora the diatinguished speakers, Mr. Madison, Mr. Budinot, Mr. Fisher Ames, and others, was this: Pri marily, the w/iote business of official, subordinate and executive action, is a part of the Executive functione, that beiug attributed in solido to the President, except that it is to he with the advice and consent of the Senate, With that limit the Executive power etands unimpeded. What then, is the rest of the consequence r Removal frora office belougs to executive povver, if the Conetitution haa not at tributed it elsewhere. Theu the gueetion wae, vvhether it Was vital, whether ita deterraination one way or other af fected aerlously the character of the government and its workings ? Ithink .all agr6e that itwas, and theu what weight, what significance is there in the fact that the party vn'hich was defeated iu the arguraeut subraitted to the conclusion and to the practice of the governraent uuder It, and did not rnlfle a voice or take a vote iu derogation of It during the whole course ofthe government. But it does not stand on this. After forty-five years' working of this system- between 1830 and 1833~there was great party exacerbation between the Deraocracy, under the lead of General Jack son, and the Whigs, under the mastcry^of the erainent meu wno then filled this hall, aud one of the most erainent of whom now does rae the houor to listen to myremarks. Under that antagonisra there was renewed the great de bate, and what waa tho raonaure which the contending parties^ uuder the influence of party apirit, brought the raatter to? 'Why, Mr. Webster said, when he led the forces in a victory, which, nerhape, for that eingle Inatance, corabined the triumvirate of himaelf, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay, that the contrary opinion aud contrary practice wae aettled. He aaye:— "I regard It aaa aettled point— eettled by conatruction, eettled by precedent, settled by the prac tice ofthe government, aettied by legislation"- and he did not aeek to dietiirb it. He knew the force of forty-five yeara; the whole exiatence of the nation under Itacou- struction ou queationa of that' kind, aud he sought only tointcrpbeeamoralrbatraiut upon the Presidont; by ^re quiring him, when lie removed an officer, to assign the reasons for removal. - ' . General Jackson met the point firmly and promptly, and in hi.5 protest against the resolution which the Senate had adopted in 1834—1 think to tho effect tbat his actiou in tho removal of Mr. Duane had been in derogation of the Con stitution and of the laws— met it vvith a defiance which brouglit two great tonics up In debate, one, the iudepeu deuce of tho Executive innis right to judgo of conatitu tional queations, and the other, tlic great point that the Concurring in the choice of a President by the people, through thoir representatives in federal membera, was an important part of the Constitution, aud that he was not .a man of hiB own will, but renewed and reinforced by tho Will of thepoople. ' That debate was carried on aud determined by tbe Se nate passing a reBolution, declaring ita opinion that Gene ral Jackson's conduct had been in derogation-jnf the Con stitution and the laws, aud on that very point reforenoe . was made to the common master of us all, the pepple 'Of the United States, and on the re-election of General JacH- son the people thomselveB, in their primary capacity, sent to the Senate on this challenge amajority which expunged tbe resolution censuring the action ofthe Executive. Yon talk about power to decide conatitutional questiona by Congress, power to decide them by the Suprerae Court, power to decide them by the Executive. I show youiifae superior power of them all, and I say that the historyof free countries, in the hiatory of popular liberty, in thehlB- tory of the povver of the people, exercised not by pawion or toy violence, but by reason, the exercise of, that power waff never shown more distinctly and more definitely than ou this very matter of whether the power of rbraoval frora office should reraaninthe Executive or be distributed among the Senators, ._. . It was uot my party thatwas pleased or was triUrapb- antonthat occasion; but aa to fact of what the people thought, there was not afty doubty and there never has been any aince, until the newaltuationhaa.producedEew interests" and resulted in new conolusiona. ¦ ». Honorable Senators -and Representativea will recollect how, in the debate which led to the pasaage of the Civil Tenure act, it was repreeented that tbe authority of the first lawyers of 1789 oughttobe somewhat scrutiaized bo- cause of infiuence on its debates aud conclusions which the great character of the Chief Magistrate* General Washington, may have produced. . , , Well, Senators, why cannot we look at the presontas wa have at the paat ? Why can we not see in ouraelvea what we so eaaily discern as poseiblo with othei S? Whyican we not appreciate it, that perhaps the judgraent ofi Sensr tors and of RepresentativeB now raay nave been warped or misled somewhat bv their opiniona and by their feelbigs towards the Executive? I ap_prehend, therefore, gentle men, that this matter of party influeuce ib one whichjit ia quite aa wise to consider, and that this raatter of personal power aud authority of character is quite as suitable to be weighed when we are actiug, as when we are deciding upon the acts of others. Two passages I will be perraitted to quote frora that great debate as carried ou in theCon- grcBB of 1789. , , ,, Mr. EVARTS here read frora tbe remarks of Mr. Madi aon aud of Mr. Boudinot iu the Uongress of 1789, those of the latter beiu^ to the effect that the President should not have oUicera imposed upon bira who did uot meet his ap probation. - - „ ,. Mr. EVARTS contIuued:—In these words of Mr..Madv eon and Mr. Boudinot I fiud the raarrow of the whole cou troversy. There Is no escaping frora it. If thisbody pur sues the method now adopted, it must ,be responaible to the country for the actiou ot the Executive Denartmenti and^ ollicers are to bo raaintained, bb these wls# statesraen aay, over the head of the President, then that power in the Conatitutiou, which allows hira to have a choice in their selection is entirely void, for if his officers are to he dependent upon Instantaneoua selection, and If thereafter there cau be uo space for repentance or for change of pur pose nn the part of the Executive, It is idle to say that he haathepower of appoinfenont. It muat be the power of appointment ftom day to day which is the power of ap pointment for which he is to bo responsible, if he is to be responaible at all. I now wiah to ask attention to the opinions expreaaed by aomeof the atatesmenwho took part iu this determina tion of what the effect and the iraportant effect of the con clusion of the Congreas of 1789 was. None of thera over looked its importance on one side nr the other, and I beg leave to read from the Life and Works of the elder Adame, vol, 1, page 448. Mr. EVARTS read from the work in question thepara- fraph giving the history of the queation ae to the PreBi- ent's povver to appoint and remove officers. He alao read frora Mr. Fisher Araes to hie correspondent, an Intel ligent lawyer iu BpstoU, in reference to the snuie subject. Mr. EVARTS then continued:— It will thus he seen, Senators, that the Btatesraeu whom we most revere re garded this, BO to speak, construction of the Constitution as important, as the framing of it Itaelf had been,! apd now the queation arises whether a law of Congress has in troduced a revolution in the doctrine and iu the practice of the government. A legislative construction binding no one and being en titled to respect from the cbangeableueeB of legislative con- etructione, m the language of we honorable Senator from Oregon, and whether a doubt, whether au act In relation to the coneti tutionality of that law on the part of the Exo- tive departraent isa grouud of impeachment, the doctrine of unconstitutional Inw seoma to be. I speak it with great respect, wholly misunderstood by the honorable managexa in the propositlona which they preseut. Nobody ca» ever violate au uuconatitutional law, for it is not a rule binding upou hira or upon anybody else. His couduct in violating it, or in contravening it, maybe at variance witb ethical or civil conditions of duty, andfor a violation of theaet ethical and civil conditions he may_be rcapouBlblu. If a marshal ol the UniCd States, executing an unconstitutional fugitive slave bH^nters vvith tho pro cess and the authority of law, It does not follow thatre- Bistancc may be carried to tho extent of shooting the map- shnl; but It Is not because it is a violation of that law, lot if it is uncouatitutional thoro can be no violation of it. It ia becauee civil duty doea not perrait civil conteats to be raised by force and violence. So, too. if a aubordinatd executive officer who baa nothing but ministerial duty to perform aa a United Statea marshal, in the service of pro- IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSOlf. 245 cesa under an imconatitutlonal law, undertakes to deal ^th the gueation of ita unconstitutionality, while the ethical and civil duty on hfe part is merelv rainieterial, and while he muat either execute it iu hie rainisterial ca pacity or resign his office, he cannot, under proper ethical rulcB, deternaine whether an execution of tho law shall be defeated 1^ tl^e resistance of the officers provided for ita execution.^ But if the law beara upon his perlsonal rights or of ficial emoluments, then, without a violation of the peaee, hemay raise a question with the law, cousie tent with all civil aud ethical dutiea. Thus we eee at once that we are brought face to face with the funda mental propoaitioos In this caae, aud I nsk your attentiou to a passage from tho Federalist, at page 5*9. where tiiere is very vigorous diecuaaian by Mr. Harallton of the question of uncouetitutional law, and also to thecaae of Marbury againat Madieoo (first Cranch, pp. 17B), which I ahall beg to include in the report of niv re marka. The aubject la old, but it is there discussed with a luminous wisdom which may well displace the more in considerate and loose views which have been T)rc5ent(.>d iu debate here. Undoubtedly, it is a queetiou of very arave consideration, how far the different departments of gov ernment, legielative, judicial, aud executive, are at liberty to act in relation to unconstitutional lawa. Judicial duty may perhaps be bound to wait for a caae, Co volunteer no advice, to exercise no Bupervleion; but as between the legislature and the executive, where the Supreme Court has paeeed upou a queation, it ia one of the graveat conatitutional pointa for public raen to deterraine where and how the legislature raay raiae the question again by passing a law against tho decision of the Suprerae Court aud agaiust the deterraination of Congress, that we in this caae have been accused of insiBtIng on extravagant pretentions. We have never auggested anything further than this, for the case oulv requires it, that wnatever may be the doubtful or debatable region in the co-ordinate authority forthe different departraents of the governmeut to judge for themselvea of the constitutionality or unconstitu tionality of laws, that when the Preaident of the United Statea, in common with the humblest citizen, finds a law passed over bis right, and binding on hia action iu the matter of bis right, then all reaaons of duty to self, to the Jublic, to tbe Constitution, aud fo the law, require that he matter shall be put iu the train of judicial decision, In order that the light of the serene wiadom of tho Su preme Court may be shed upou it, to the end that Con- ETCSH even may reconsider ita action, and retract ita en croachment on the Conatitution. ButSenators will not have forgotten that Gen. Jackson, in his celebrated coutroversiee with tho Whig party, claim ed that no department of the government ehould receive Ita final and necessary and perpetual exclueion and conclu sion on constitutional queationa, over the judgement even ofthe Supreme Court, and that iinder the obligation' of one's oath, yourselves as Senatora,. yourselvea as Rcpre- Bedtativca, and the President as Chief Execufive, each must act In a new juncture or in reference to a new raat ter arising to raise again the questiou of couBtltutional au thority. Now let me read a ehort paasage iu which Gen. JackFon iu hie protest sets this forth. I read frora the debate on the Fugitive Slave law, as con ducted In this body iu thoyear 1853; when the houorable Senator frora Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) waBflpokesman and champion of the right of each department of the go vemment to judge of the conatitutioualitvof lawand of dnty. But wnatever may be the infiuence .of thisjudg- ipent, tbat is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the caae of Prigg, as a rule for tbo judiciary, it cannot arrest our duty aa legislators. Here I adopt with entire assent the language of President Jackson, in his raeraorable veto in 1832, of the Bank of the United States :~ "If the opinion of the Supreme Court covers the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of the government. The Congrese, the Execu tive and the court must each tor itself be guided hy its own eipinion of tho Constitntion. Every public oflicer who takes an oath to support the Constitutiou, swears that be will support it as he understands it, and uot as it is under etood by others. Itia as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, aud of the President to de cide on the conetitutiounlf ty ot any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for paasage and approval, as it Is of the suprerae judgea when it may be brought before tbem for judicial deciaion. Tho authority of the Supreme .Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control Con gress ur the Executive, but to nave ouly such infiuence as the force of their reasoning may deserve,." With theae authoritative words of Andrew Jack- faun, I dismiss tho aubject now. Tiraes change, and we change witb them. Nevertheleab, principles remain; duties reraaiu; the powera of the goverDmeut reraain; their co-ordi 11 ation remains; tho conscience of men re mains, and everybody Who haa takeu anoatli; everjfbody who is aubject to the Conatitutiou, without taking an oath, in peaceful means, has a right to revere the Constitution in derogation of constitutional law ; and any legislatlvo law, or auy judicial authority which shall deny the supremacy of the Convtitiition iu ita power to protect nien, who thus conecIentiouBly, thus peacefully raise questions fbr deter mination, in a contlict betvvceu tho Constitution and the law, willnot be consistent with the written Constitntion or with the maintenance of the liberties of the people, as established by and dependent ou tho preBcrvation of a written Consritution. Now let us see whether, ou every ethical, constitutional and legal rule, the President of the tiuitcd Statea was not the peraon on whom the civil tenure act operated, not as an executive oPRcer to carry out a law, but as one of the co-ordinato departraents of the govern ment, over whom, in that official relation to the anthoviry of the act, was sought to be aaserted. The language ia general :— "Every reraoval from office contrary to the pro- Visions of thia act shall be ahigh misderaeanor." Who could remove frora office bnt the President of tho Uuited States? Who had authority? Who could be governed by the laws but he? And it vvaa not an official const! utional duty— not a peraonal right, not a matter of personal value, Cr cnoice, or interest with him that he acted. Wheu,-therefore, it 13 sought and claiined.that by force of the legislative enactraent the Preeident of the United Statea shall not remove frora office whether the act of Congreaa was constitutional or not, he was absolutely pro hibited from removiug from office although the Constitu tion allowed him to do so. the Conetitution could not pro tect hira for the act, but that the act of Congresf, seizing upon him, could' draw hini In here b.y irapeachraent and aubject him to judgment for vlolatioua of thelaw, aUhough maintaining the (Jonstitution, and that the Conatitutiou Eronounces eentence of .condemnation and infamy upou im for having worshipped its authority and eought to maintain it, and that tue authority 6f Congrees haa that power and extent, then you practically tear asunder tlv3 Constitution. If on these grounda you disraiss the President from this court, convicted aud deposed, y&u dianiias hira the viotitn ofthe Congress and the martyr of the Cnufitltution, by tlie very terras of your judgement, and you throw open for the mastere of ua all. in the great debates of an intelligent, iUr Btriicted, fearless, practical nation of freemen, a division of sentiraent to shake this country to its centre— the orrt nipotence of Congress, as the rallying cry on ouo side ana the supreraacy of the Coustttution on the other. [The court, here, at two o'clock, took a receas.] JMtr. Evartfl Continues. After the recess, Mr, EVARTS continued :— There is but one other topic that I ueed to ineiet upon here aa bearing upou thnt part of ray argument which is intended to ex hibit to the clear apDrehension. and, I hope, the adoption of thie court, the vie^v that all here that pos&eBEea weight and dignity, that really preaenta the agitating coutest that hae been proceeding between the departmenta of our go vernraent Is political, and uot criminal, or euitablo for ju dicial cognisance; and thatia what seems to me to be de- claivein your judgment and iu your consciences, and that is the attitude that every oue of you already, in your pub lic action, occupies towarda thia aubject. Why the Coustitutiou of tho United States never in tended BO to coerce .ind conatrnlu the con -sciences and duties of raen as to bring thcmlnto the poaition of judgea between themselves and another branch of the govern ment. The eternal principlea of justice are implied In the conatitution of every countrv; and there are no more ira rautable, no more inevitablo principles thau theee— that no raan shall bc a judgo in hia own caeo, and that no man shall be a judge in a matter In which he hae already given judgment. It ia abhorrent to a natural aense of justice that men should judge ih their own case. Jt Is incousiBtent with nature itself that man should assume an oath, aud hope to gerform it, of beiug impartial iu his own .judgment vvhen e has already formed it. How many crimes that a Pre sident mny hive imputed to hira, that raay bring him to the jUdgiUL-ut of a Senate, are crimes againat the (Jonstitu tion or the laws, involving turpitude or personal delin quency? The.v are crimes in vvhich it ia inadmissible to imagine that the Senate should be committed at all; they ajjk criraes which, however rauch the necessary reflection ofuolitical opinions raay bias, by personal judgmentof this and that and all the members of the bodv, yet It must be possible only that they should give a color, or a turn, and not be themselves the veiy basis. The aubatance of the Judsment to be rendered, which therefore I ahow you, ia from the records of this Senate; that yourselves have voted upon thia lavv, whoae coustitu- tiouality is to be determined, and that the questioa is upon constitutionality or judgraent of couatitutionality. When vou have iu your capacity of a Senate, undertook after lhe act waa committed, ae au act suitable iu your judgment to be p_erformea by you in your relation to tha Executive authority, and your duty under this govera- ment to pronounce, as you did by resolution, that the re moval of Mr. Stahton and the appointraent of General Thomaa was not authorized by the Constltutionand the IjiwB, yoil either did or did not regard that as a raatter of political actiou ; then you regarded it ae a matter that could not possibly be brought befpfe you iu your judicial capacity for you to determine upon any persoual conse quences to the Executive. , ., . . How wae it a matter for political aetion, unless it was a matter of bis political action, and the controversy waa wholly of apolitical nature? If you on the other hand, had in your minds aposeibility of this extraordinary juris diction being brought into play by a complaint to be made by the House of Representatives against nim, what an ex traordinary spectacle should you preeent toyoureelves and this country. No, the controlling, the necessary feeling, upon which you acted, muat have been that it is a atage and a atep In governmental action concerning which we made this auggeStlon 4nd thia reproof. Why, in 1^, when the Senate of the United Statef waa debatina a resolution condemnatory of General Jack son's proceedings in refereuce to tbo deposits, the question waa raised :— Have you, wilLyou, ahould you pronounce an opinion upou a matter of this kind? Jt may be made tbe occaBion for your TieWfi on a subiect to be produced 246 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHI^SON.' fpr judicial construction. It mav be true that that resO'- liitlou does net pover guilt; that it omy expresses an opiuibn that the law and authority iu the Constitution md not cover the action of the President. But It does not. impute violence, of design, or vvicked- ncB of purpose,, or other than a justifiable difference of opinion, to resort to au arbiter between you. But even iu that limited view, I take it, no Senator can think or feel that, as a preliminary part of the judgment of a court, that was the sentiment of tbe House, and tho construction, of the Senate showed it to be only a matter of political discussion, and absolutely set aBide a motion of impeach ment, and rendered, therefbt & the debate a political de bate, and the conclusion a political concluaion. And novv there Is but one proposition that consists witb the truth of the case, and witb flie eituation of you. Sena tors, and that is, that you regard the acts as politioal action, and political decision, and uot by possibility of matterof judgraent a case of an Irapeacnraent, and tho necessary trial. The answer of the' great and trusted stateraau of the Whig party of that day was. If tiiere wae in the atraosphere a whisper, if there was in tbe future a menace, if there waa a hftpe or a fear, as some seera to think, that irapeachraent waa to come, debate muat be silenced, aud the reeolution suppressed; but they recognized the faet that it was ipcre political action that was being resorted to>, and that was. or was to be possible, the coraplexion of the Houee to end in ac quittal or conviction, thia proceeding oould be for a mo ment juetified. Why. to two 'of the gr.we^t articlea of irapeachment in the weightiest trial ever introduced into thia.court, and those in which as lal-geavote of condem nation was made aa upon any others, were tlie two ar ticlea agaiuat Judge Chase, one of which Brought him in question for coming to the trial in Peunsylvania with a formed and pronounced opinion; and iu another, the third, wns the ~following:— A juryman to enter the box on the trial of Callender at Kichmopd, who stated that ho had forraed nn opinion, I would liko to see a court of irapeachraent that regards thia as a grave matter; that a judge should corae to atrial and pro nounce the conderanntion of a prisoner before the counsel are heard, and that he allows a juryman to enter the box who had excused himself frora havmg a free raind ou the Eointto be discusped; and yet are we to be told that you, aving forraed and expressed an opinion, are to sit here the judgea iu auch a matter aa this. What ie there but an anewer of this kiud ncceeaary:— The Constitution never brings a Senate into an iucnlpation and a conderanation of a ]?reaideut upon raatters in wliich, and of which, two departraents of the governraent, in their political capaci- tios, have formed and exprcBsed political opiniona. It ia of other matters and of other forma iu which there are uo parties and no dl^criralnationa of opinion; itia of offenses, of crime, in which the coinmon roles of duty, of obligation, of excese, or of sin, are not determinable upon political opinions formed and expreaaed in debate; nut here a principal is equally contravened, and this aids anv argument, that it is political, nnd not personal or criminal. It 13 that you are to nass judgment of and concerning questious of the partition of the officera of this government between the President and yourselvea. The matter of hia fault is that he claims thera; the very raatter of his con demnation ia that you had a right to them, and you, aided by the liyt furnished by the managers— of 41,001) in number, and $21,000,000 in annual emoluraent— are you to ait here, as judges, with this false claim, and ia his appeal to a com mon arbiter, in a matter of thia kind, to be imputed to him as personal guilt, and followed by persoual punishment? How would ! tuy of us like to Ke tried before a judge who, if he condemned us, would have our hoiieee, an#if he acquitted ni we ahould have hie? Why, so eenaitlve la the natural eenae of justice on thie point that the vvholo country was aet in a tflazebya provision in the Fugitive Slave law that a Comraiasioner ahould have but five dol lars if he eet the alave free, and teu dollars if he remaiided llim. Have the judges of thia court forgotten that criwls of the public mind as to allowing a judge to have an interest in the subject of his judgraent? Have tbey forgotten that tho honorable Senator from Maflflaobusetts (Mr. Siimncr), in the debato upon this Teuure of Office act, thought the pQlItical bias might etfect a court bo that it would not give judgment of moro than nominal puniehraent for tbe com- mjLsBlon of thw act, and yet you 'are full of politics. The whole point of ray argumentis an abaolute demon- Btration that the Conetitution of the United States never forcea honorable men iuto a position where tbop aro judges in their ovv-n causes, or where they come in contact with their opinions prievioiialy expressed, and have oraitted from this consideration thfffflct thatthe great office itaelf, if bv your judgmebtitehalrbo taken from elective control of this Kepublic, is to be put Into the posaeaBion of a member of your own body chosen , to-day, to-morrow, at any time by yourselves, and that you are tnking tho crovvu of the people's raagiati'acy, ofthe people's glory, to decorate with honor an omcerof tbe Senate,, who, by virtue of vour favor, holding the placo of President pro tem., adds tho Presidency to its duticB; and an officer, ehangeable from day to day by you aQ you chooae to have a new Preeident «iro tem., whet, bythe aame title, assuraes, day by 4ay, tho aischargo of the duties of the. President of the United States. Now, wheu the prize la that, but vvhen the circuiuBl ances areas I explain thera. Senatora must de Ciiue a juriadiction. Uppn this dcmonatration that human nature andbuman vfi-tne cannot endure that men should be judgea in sUch strife, I agree that your duty brings yoii here. You have no right to avoid it, but it is a duty conalstent with judi- fdal triiilB, and tho aUbjoct itself, thus illustrated, snfltCbeB from vou at once the topics that you have been asked to exarnine. It suita my sense of the better construction of the separate articles to treat tnem at first somewhat edne- rally, and then by snch distribution ns aeema raoat to bridg UB fignally to what, if it shall uot before that time have appeared, shall appear, to me the gravest matter for your' consideration. , . ,"*.-, . Now, let rae ask you, atthe outset, to see how Uttle as raattfr of evidence thia ^ae is. Certaiinly 'the President . of the United States has been placed under as trying and as hot a caee of political oppoeition aa ever man was oP could be ; certainly for two years there haa been no partial construction of his conduct; certainly for two y^arg he baa been sifted by onej of tbo most poweiful winnowing machines that I have ever heard of, the Houae of RopreBentativeB of the United States' of America, Certainly tbe wealth ofthe nation, certainly the exigencies of party, certainlv the zeal of political ambt tion, have presaed into the service of imputation, oi^ incul pation and of proof, all tbat this country affords, all that the power to send for peraons aud papers includes. They ran none of the risks that attend ordinary proceediags, of bringing their witnesaea into court to stand the test df exaraination and cross-examination, but they can put them under the conatruction of an oath aud an explamu tion in advance, and flee what they can prove, and whoni they can briug and whom they can reject- a They can take our witnesses from the stand, already under oath, and even those of ao great and high a characteir as the Lieutenant-General of your armies, and out of court try him with a uew exaraination, to eee whether be ahall help or hurt thera by being croes-exarained In court, using every arra and every art, stayed by no sense except of publfa duty to reraove their, power, or control its exercise, and yet here is the evidence. The people of this couutry have been made to believe that all sorts of personal vice nnd wickedness, that all sorts of official raisconduct andfolly^ that all sorts of usurpation and oppreesion, practiced and executed on the part of this Executive, was to be explored and exposed by the proaecution, and certainjy set down in the record of this court of pnblic judgment. Here you have It. For violence and oppreaaion and uaurpation— a telegram between the Preaident and Gover nor Parsons, publiahed two years ago ; for the deeire to re- preaa the power of Cougreaa— the testimony of a would-be office-seeker that the President said certain poiutB were " important, and he thought the patrortage of the govern* ment should be in aupport of those principlea. The woulde be officcrseeker went home and waa suppoaed to have said that the President had made use of verv violent and offen* sive words. Weights were the testiraony upon the scale In which the nation weighs it, upon the s(fele that foreign nations look at it, upon the Bcale that historv will apply to It, upon the scale that posterity will in retrospective guard it frora. It depends a good deal upon how large a selection a few upecimens of the testiipony came frora. If I brin« a bajid- full of wheat marked by the ruat or weevel and show ft to my neighbor, he would eav, "Why, what a wretched crop of wheat j-ou have made," But ifl said to hira, "These few kemele are what I have taken frora the bins of luy wholfl harvest," be would answer, "What a splendid cTtiE^ia wheat .you have had,'? Now, answer, auawer. answer, if there is anything wrong iu this. Mr. Manager Wilaon, from the Judiciary Committee^ having examined thia aubject with all care, made a report itself the wieeat, the clearest and alao one of the moat entertaining reporta ou the subject of irapeachraent iu the paft and ib the present that I have ever eeen, or can ever expect to aee. What ia the reeult? That it Is all polkical. All these thunder clouds arc political, and it is only this Utile, petty pattering of rain conveying the infraction' of the Conatitution thnt ia peraonal or criminal, and th6 grand Inqnea* of the nation, before the final reverberation of the whole harangue, on the 9th of Deceraber, 1867* votes- 107 to 57— uo impeachment. Aud now, I would like to know, if theae honcfrabM managera had limited their addreaaea to this court to mat* tera which, iu uurpose, in character, in Intent, and ift effect occurred after that Bill of Impeachment was thrown out by IIS, how mnch would have been entertained of thia caso? I have nnt beard anything which had not occurred before that. The apeecbea were made eighteen months before the telegram was aent ; a year bewro Wood, thft office-aeeker. came Into play, long before. What ia tberet then? The honorable managers, too, do not seera to has^» beon of one raind about these articles. The articlea seen! to have been originally discussed, and then assorted after ward?. 1 understood the honorable manager (Mr. Butler) to aay, that if thore is not auvthine in the first article, you ncea not trouble yourselvee to think of the eleventh, and Mn Manngor Steveus thinks If thene-is nothing in the eleventh article you had better not bother yourseK for looking at anvthing iu the first ten (renefredlauphter). for be says, a county court lawyer could get rid of thera. Here is }vhat Mr. Stevens aays in the House:— "I wish It to be particularly notiecd that which Iintend to offer aa a-n araendmeut, I wiah gentleraen to examine and see that thia charge is nowhere contained In any of tbe articles re- Poijed, a^d tliat unless it la inserted there can be no trial. and that if there be shrewd lawyers, ae I kuow there will bo. and cavihng iiidges" (he did uot state any certainty of that), "and withont this article they donotaccftiit fliev are greener tban I was iu any case I over undertook befoxa acourtof quarter Beaaiona." (Laughter.) Well, now, it willnot be very vaiu: in ua to think that perhapa we come up to that eatimate on our side of tbe Quarter Sessions lawyer wbo would be adequate to die- IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. Ul poae of these articles, and thev were qwite right abont it. If _yoH cannot get iu what is political and nothing but po litical, you caunot get bold ot anything that ia criminal or personal. , . Jlow, having passed firom the general estimate of the l.articneas and feeblouoss of the addresses and chargea, I begin with t^o consideration of the article iu refereuceito it, and to the subject matter of which I am disposed to cnncedb thero is sorae proof, and that as to tbe speechoa. Now, I thiuk that it haa been proved 'here that' the apc^hea charged upou tbe President, in subatance and In general, were made. My first difficulty about them ia, that they were made in 1866, andthat they related to a Congreas which has passed out of existence, and that they were the subject of a report of the Judiciary Coraraittee to the House, and which the liaise voted that it would not irapeach. My noxt diffieuRy ia, that tbey are criraea agaiuat arguraeut, againat rhetoric, against taste, nnd perhaps againat logic; but that the Conetitution of the Uuited States, neither in itself nor by any aubeequont administration, has provided tor the goverument of the people itt this country In theae regards. . Now, it is a new thing in this country to punish any man fbr raaking a speech. Tiiere is a great many spenchea made in thia country, and, therefore, caaea would un doubtedly have arieen In eighty years of our history where men were puniehed for making speeches. Indeed, I be lieve If there is anything which more particularly raarks MB the approval of other nationa, it ia that every raau in this country not only has a right to mako a speach, but can make a speech, and a very good one, and that he docs at aome time or other actually do so. The very lowest epithet for speech-making in the Ameri can republic adopted by the newapapers is "able and elo quent." (Laughter.) I have eeen applied in the news papers to -the efforta of honorable raanagers here, the epi thet in advance of "tperoendous.'* (Laughter.) X have seen thera spoken of before thoy were delivered as of tre mendous force; and I aaw once an accurate, authentical etatenieut of the force of one, and tbat iu advance, tbat ib couBiBtcd of 33.000 worda, (Laufiht«r.) Therefore a case must have arisen for a question if there waa to be anv puniBhraent for epoech-mafcing. But now, for the first time, we begin with the President, and accuse him ; we take hira before no ordinary court, but we or- ganizoacourt for tbe.purpoBe; which court adjourns the moraent it ia over witn the trial . f urnlehing n o precedenta, and must remove him frora office and order a new elec tion. Now that la n good deal to turn upou a speech. Only thtakof it— v> be able to make a speech which would re- quin; anewelection of Preeident to be made, (Laughter.) Wellflf the trial is to take place, let the proclamation I^aue to this speech-inaking people. "Let hira who is wlth- 04ife sin among you ca!>t the first atone," and eee how tho nation, ou tipi-too, awaits to aee who will anawer that dainty challenge, who aaeumes that fastidious duty. We see, m addition, the neceesary requirement. It rauet bo ono who, by loug dlaeipline, has learned to speak without bounda, one whoae lips would staramer at au iraputation, whose cheek would blneh at a reproach, whoso ears would^ tingle at au invective, and whose eyea vvould close at au indecorura. It raust be one who, by strict continuance of spech, and bv control over the tongue— that unruly mera- bor— has gained with all his countryraen the praise of ruling his own spirit, which ia greater than oue who taketh a city.And now the challenge is answered, aiud it seems fhat tho honorable manager to whom thia duty ia assigned, ia one who would be recognized at once, in the judgment of all, aa "First iu war. hvat In ppace, first in boldness of words, and first iu the hearta of all hia country men, who love thia wordy Inirepldlty." (Unrepreaacd laughter.) Well, now, thowiampionbcing gained, we aak for the rulee, and iu an interlocutory iuquiry, vvhich I had ttie houor to address to hira, ho said the rule was the opinion of the court which was to try the caao. Now let us eee whether we can get any guidance as to what your opinions are na to thia subjedt of freedom of Bpeech, for we are brought down to that, having uo law or precedents, besides I find that the matter charged against the Pi'ceident, is, that be baa been uamiudful of the har monv and courteaics which ahould prevail between the legielative and the executive. K it ahould prevail from the Executive towarda the le- dslative, it should aUo prevail from the legislative to the Executive. Except I ara to he met with what I raust re- fiard ae a most novel view presented by Mr. Manager Wil lams. in his argument the other day, that, as the Consti tutiou of the United Statea prevents yoUr being Arawii iu Questiou anywhere for what you say, it ia, therefore, a rule which does not work both ways. Well, thnt is au agreeable view of personal duty, that if I wear an im penetrable ahlrt of mail, it ia just tbe tiling for me to be diavrfng daggers againat every one else. Noolease ooliae seems to be a law which tbehonorahle manager does not thiuk applicable to the bouses of Con greas. If there were anything in that auggeatrbn, how ahouldyou guard and regulate ypnr uae or freedom of apeecbf Now I have not gone outside ofthe debates which areSonnected witb the (Svil Tenure act . Mv ^e haa been sufficientl.v occupied with reading all tbat has been said in behalf of tbe House on thnt aub- jectjSut I find a well recorded precedent, not mere^ in the observation of a single Senator, but m the direct do- teraiSaSon of tho Senate itaelf, in pMsing on the ques tion, which certainly points at least to freedona of speech aa between two departments of tbe government. Tbe honorable Senator from MasBaobasetta, in the courae of the debate, savs. on the subject of thia very law in re ference to the President, "Yo» may ask protection against V°°i.™i iJ answer plainly, protecflon against the Presi dentof the United States. There sir, ie the duty of.the "°' w V 2°*^^' ^^ "Ipy,- ^'I'l do not forget if. There was no such duty on our fathers. ThereWasno such duty on oiu* recent predecessors in this Charaber. because there was no President of the United Statea who had become tho enemy, of hie country." *' ¦ Well, now, the President had said that Congresa was hanging ou the verge of the government, but here is a di rect charge that the Preaident of the United Statos is the eneray of the country. Mr. Sumno'- being called to order for that expression, the honornble Scnntor from Khode Island, Mr. Anthony, Whb not unfrequently presides with 80 much urbanity and so much control over your delibera tions, gave this view as to what the common lavv of tho tribunal is on the aubject of the harmonica and courtesies which ahould prevailTaetween'the legislative and execu-, tive departments. He said, "It ia the impreselon of the chair that these words do not exceed tho usual (laughter) latitude of de bate which has beeu perraitted "here." (Laughter), Now that IB the cuetom of the tribunal eetabliahed by the pre aiding officer. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, snid, "T thiuk the words objected to are clearly In order." (Loud Laughter.) I have heard aimilar reraarka fifty times (continued laughter) without any question of order being raised. And the Senate came to a vote, the opposing members of which remind rae of sorae votes on evidence which we bave had on this trial. The appeal was laid on the' table byavoteof 29yeaB tolOnays. But that is not all. Pro ceeding in the aarae debate, after b^iug allowed to be in order, Mr. Suraner goea ou with his speech, the eloquence of which I caunot sufficicntly compliment, as it would be out of place to do so. but it certainly is of the highest order. Of course, I make uo criticisra. He begins with the announceraent ,of a very good principle. ¦ He says:— " I shall insist alwaya on complete freedom of debate, dud lahallexcrelBoit. John Milton, ic his glorious aeplra- tii'ns, said ;— (Give mo the liberty to kuow, to utter and to argue freely above all liberties.) "Thank God now that elave-masters have beeu driven from this court— euch ia the liberty of American Senatora. • Of course, there can be no citizen of a republic too bigh for exposure, a'a there cau'be node too low for protection. Theae are not only invaluable liberties, but com-, manded duties. Now^ Ib there anything in the Proaident's answer that is nobler or more thorough-going than that? ,\nd if the President isnot too high: if It a commanded, duty to call him an enemy of the country, is not the House of Repreaentaf ives to be exposed to the iraputation of a moat intelligible aspersion upon thera that they are hang ing nn the verge of the government. (Laughter.) Then the honorable Senator proceede iu a style of obser vation, on whicll I shall mako no criticism whatever, ex cept that that of Cicero against Cataline and against V er- res doea not contain more eloquence againat the objects of his invective than that speech of the honorable Senator; and theu it all enda iu a wonderfully sensible and pithy. obeervatiou, on the part of the houorable Senator frouv Michigan, Mr. Howard, who saye, "the Senator from Maesachusctte hae advanced the idea that the President has become an enemy to hia country,'* but I suppose that not only to be the condition of the sentimfint in this Senate, touching the President of the Uuited States, but I suppose We never had a President in regard to whom the opinion of the Senate was not divided on* just that questiou— sorae thinking be was au eneniy of ^he ' country, and others thinking thnt he wae not; and I respecttuliy submit therefore thnt the Senator from Masenchiisetta will bo as competent to try an impeachment it sent here against the President as I concede the Senator from Maryland, Mr. John eon, will be competent to try it." Now that ie good seUiBO. Senatorial licenae inay be made so wide as that. We have also a report in the House of Repreaeutatives of a very brief debate between two of the .most dietinguished. merabera of that body, who can. as well as any others, for. the purpose of this trinl, furnish a standard of whatis called by the honorable uiauager •'TJropriety of apeech." Mr, Bingham says^ **! deaii-e to aay, Mr. CbairmaUk that it doea not Decofeiie a gentleftian vvho recorded his vote fifty tiraes for Jefferson Davis, the arch-traitor In this Rebellion (roars of laughter), as hia candidate far the Presidency of tbe tJnited Statea, to undertake to damage this cause bv atterapting to fasten an imputation ' either on ray integrity or ou my honor ; I reoel with ecom and contempt, anv utterances of that aort, from any man, whether he be the hero of Fort Fisher noi taken, or of Fort - Fisher taken." (Coutiuuous laughter,) Mr. Butler, after sorae remarks, said:— "But if, during the war, thegcnile- man f^ora Ohio did ns much ae I did in that durectiuu, I shall be glad to recognize that much. "But the only victim ofthe gentldmen*s prowess that I know of was an innocent woman hung upon tho scaffoldi oneMrs. Surratt: and lean Buatain the memory of Fort Haher, if he and nis preseut associates can sustain him m' abbdding the blood of a woman vvho was tried by a mili tary commiaaion and convicted without sufficient evidence. in my judgment." Mr. Bingham replied with spirit :^"I cbauoneo the gentleman; I dare him nere, or anywhere in this tribunal, or any tribunal, to assert that 1 spoliated ' or mutilated any book. But such a charge, without one tittle of evidence, ts only fit to come frora a man who Uws in a bottle, and h fed witb a spoon." What tbat refers to I do not know. 248 IMPE4.CHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. [While the court and gallerioB were convulBCd. with langhter at the expense oi the two managera referred to both these gentlemen' sat at .the table apparently uncon cerned and uninterested spectators.] Mr. EVARTS, continuing, said:— This all coraes within the common law of courteay, in the judgmentof the Houae of Representatives, We have attempted to show that in the President's addresses to the people there was aomething of irritation, aoraethlufj in the aubject, soraething in the manner of the crowd which ex cused and explained, if it did not justify, the atyle of his speeches: andyou mi^ht suppoae that thie interchange of dTebate which I have just read grew out of some subject which was irritating, which was in itaelf savage and fero cious. But what do you think the subject was that these houorable gentlemen were debating upon? Why it was charity. A Senator— What? Mr. EVARTS— Charity— a question of charity to the Bouth ; tbat was the whole staple of debate, "Charity which- suffereth all things , and is kind,'* (Laughter.) Charity which envieth uot ; charity which vaunteth not itself, IS not puffed up, and doth not behave itaielf iin- Beemly: seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked ; thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in Iniquity, but rejoiceth in tbatruth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, "Charity never fails." But the apostle adds, what may not be exactly true In regard to the raanagers, "Tongues may fail." (Laughtor.) But now, now to be serious. In a free Republic who will tolerate thia fanfaronade about speech-raakiug. Quis tole- rit ar^acchos de.seditione querentest Who will tolerate public orators prating about propriety of speech? Why cau we uot learn that their estimates of others must proceed on general views, and not vary according to particular paeeions and prejudice? When Crorawell, in his career through Ireland In the narae of the Parliament, had set himeelf down before the town of Rose, and summoned It to surrender, the Papist community, exhausted iu Its resietance, asked to surren der only on condition of freedom of conscience. Crorawell replied ;— " Ae to freedom of conscience, I meddle with no matfa coueclence, but if you mean by that liberty to celebrate the Maes, I vvould have you to under etand that In no place where the power of the Parliaraent of England prevails^hall tbat be perraitted," So the bonorablc raanagers do not complain of freedom of speech, but if any man says that the House of Rep resentatives Ib " hanging on the verge of the gov ernraent," we arc to understand that In nn place where the power of the two Houses of Congress prevails, Bhall that oc permitted, aUhough thev meddle with no man's property or freedom of speech? (Laughter.) Now, Mr. Jefferson, who had occaeion to give his viewa about infractions of the freedom of writing when the Sedition law waa introduced into the legislation of thia country, and. at the same time, to give aorae notions about the right of the Executive to hnve an opinion, says, iu a let ter to JMra. PreBident Adame. writteu in 1804:— "I dis charged every person under punishraent aud proae cution under the ¦ Sedition law, because I cousidered and now conaider that law to be a nullity aa abi?olute and as palpable as if CongrcBs had ordered us to fall down and wor:?hip the golden Iraage, and that it was as much my duty to arrest its execution in every State as it would have been to have rescued from the fiery furnace those who should have been cast iuto it for refusing tp worship the image." It was nccordinglv done in every instance, with out asking what the offendera had done, or against whom they had offended, but whether the paina they were suf fering were infiicted under the pretended sedition lavv, and iu another letter he repllea to eome obsei-va- tion ae to the freedom qf the Executive about the conatitu- tionallty of lawa :— "You aeem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the Sedition law, but nothing in the Constitution haa given tbera a right to do- cade for the Executive more, than fqr the Execufive to de cide for thera. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action aBsigaed to thera; the judgea be- beving the law constitutional bad a right to pags sentence of nne or iraprisonment, because the power is placed- in their hands by the Constitution, liut the ^xecu tlVe, believing the law to bo unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it, because that power had been .confided to him by the Constitution, that ita co-ordinate branches should be checks upon each other; but the opinion that gives the judges the right to admiuiater what lawp are conafitutional and what are not. not only for fliemaelves in. their owu aphere of action,, but for tbe legislative and Executive also in their spheres, would render the judiciary despotic and tyraunicaL'l Now, we have no occasion to aeeert, and we havp not asserted, the right to re- gfirt to these extreibe opifaiona. which, itia known Mr. Jefferaon entertained. The opinions of Mr. Madison more temperate but eguaiy thoropgb, were to the earae effect, and the co-ordinate branches of the government must surrender their co-ordination whenever they allow the past history tu be a final bar from renewing or pre- IsentiBg conatitfltional questions for reconsideration and redetermination, if neccasary, even by the Supreme Court: but wo have hero acme questions of the courtesies of tiie different branches of tho government in the sevefo^ ex. presaion of opinon which Mr. Manager BputweU indulged in rolation to the heads of department?. ' ,..}} ."CBaidlfl ae much severer and nsmuch more de- that the President called Cungresa, in a telegram, a set of individuals. Well, we have beard of au old lady, not very wjL'U instructed, who got very violent ou-beiug called an fup dividual, but here we nave an iraputation in bo raany worch on the heada of ddpartmonts of this government, that they are serfs, ^;he servants of a master, alaves of an ownei and yet, in thia very presence, sits the eminent Chief Justice of the United States, and tbe erainent Senator from Maine" (Mr. Fessenden). and the distiuguiBhed Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cameron), all of whom have held Cabinet oSlces which are thus deprecated and derided, and if I were to estiraate the Senators wbo aspire in the future to hold these degrad ing positions, I ara afraid I should not have judges enougit here to determine this case. (Laughter), I know thin Is all extravngauce, est ^nodus in rebus, sunt certi deniqm fines. Thereis some measure in things ;4here ia Bomo limit to the bounda of debate and discussion. Now, I agree that nothing can De more unfortunate than the language used by the President in the speech made in St. Louu. The difficulty is undoubtedly that the Preeideut is not farailiar with the graces ^ be has not been taught at school costly ornament aud tbe studied contrivances of speeob, but thathe speaks right on, and when an article is pre sented In hia path he steps right over it. Here is atheto. rical difficulty presented for a man who ia not a rhetori cian, as a sort ofa metaphorical allusion was. made to Judas. Well, now, if anvbody attempts to becomo logi cal with a metap. or it will get him into trouble at onoe (laughter), aud that is what the President did. If you look around with the eye of a logician you see that Judaa was the betrayer of all goodness, and a man would natu rally aay, where is the goodness 1 have betrayed? The raoment, therefore, that you seek to be logical, by introducing the name of the divinity against whom Judm had thua sinned, there, of course, you produce that offense to our religiouB Eentiment, which otherwiae would not have been committed. I ara not entirely aufe that when you make allowance for the difference between the extempore speech of the President to a mob, and a writ- ten, prepared andprinted apeech to thia court' by the honorable managera, bnt there will be some little trace of the aame impropriety of that figure- of argument which preaented Mr. Carpenter to your obaervatlon aa an inaph-ed painter, whose pencil was guided by the band of Provi dence, and the appointment of Mr. Edwin M. Stanton to perpetual blies and Governor Seward to eternal pain. (Laughter.) But all that is matter of taste, matter of feeling; matfiw of distinction, matter of j udgraent. The serious views int- pressed upon you with so much force bv the couneel for the President who opened this case (Mr. Curtie), and sup ported by the quotations from Mr. Madison, present thia whole subject iu Its proper view to an American audience. I think that if our newspapers would find some more die- criminatlng scale of comraent on speeches than to make the lowest in the scale able aud eloquent, we should have a better state of things in our orations. Now, our position in reference to tbe speeches U that the subjects produced in proof ehould be considered; that words put into the speaker's mouth bythe crowd, or called forby tbeir unfriendly or impolite suggestions, are to have tbeir weight and that without apologizing, for no man is bound to apologize before the laws before the court for the exercise of freedora of speech. It may he fairly admitted that it would be well if au men were accomplished rheto. riciane and finished logicians, and had a bridle on their tongues. And now, without verging at all upon the eleventh article, which I leave to the obaervatlons of tiie honorable manaeera, and leave among tbemselveB to £.a- pose of, I will tako up the Emory article. The Eraory article laan offenae which began and ended ou the 22d of February, and is comprised within a short conversation between the President aud a general of out array. I dare aay tbat in the rapid aud heated course of events which took irapeachment through the House of Representatives, it might bave been underetood by rumor, uncertain and implied, that there had occurred aome kidd of military purpose or communication on tbe part of tho President wnich looked to-^be uae of force. But under the proofs what can we aay of it but that the Preeident, under an intimation from Seoretary Welles that all the officera v^ere being called away from what, doubtlesa, ie their propor occupation in time of peace, "attendance on levcoa," and were being summoned, as they wero from tbe halls of revelry at Brussels to tho battlo of Waterloo, in quired, as it was natural to Squire, when and whore tbia battle was to take place? The Preaident received it with great indifference : said he didnot know about Creneral Emorv, and did not seem to care anything about it. But, fi.'nally, when Seoretary Welles said that it would be better to look iuto it, the President did look into it, and it ended witb a discussion of constitutional law between the Preaidont and General Emory, in which the General, reinforced by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, a lawyer, and Mr. Robert J. Walker, a lawyer, actually put down th^resident entirely. (Laughter.) Now, it the President ought to be removed from officofbr that,and a new election ordered for that, you will fip da- termine in judgment, and if any otber Preaident cango through four years without doing aomething worse than that we shall have to be more Careful iu our preliminary examinations, and in our nominating conventions. > i un* derstand this article to bo hardly inalBted on, then cornea the conspiracy articlea. Now, tbe consipracv consista in tiys:- It wap all comraenced and accomplisbcH irf writine. * The documents were published ; thoy were imraediatoy the acts of 1792 and 1795. Now, I would like to know whether, when Mr. Lipcoln appointed 'M,r. Skinner to ,0p Postniiiater-GGncral without an enabling and, supporting aet of Congreas to -juatify him. he deserved to be inv peached? Whether that is a crime against tho (Jiiuautor tiou aud his oath of , odice, whether a duty due to tho C^i' atitution that be should be impGached and romoved aud a new election ordered?' I caunot bwt inaiat upon alvravB separating from th^se crimes alleged in the articlee tiie giidt that is outside of tho articles, and that has been peif- ceived, and which their answer no,t even permitted to rebut by teetimnny. , ¦ ., ; I will take tho question as it ie, aud I will read each arti-- clcj including the whole conipaas of icrimo, the ; whole ranga of iraputation, tho whole ecope of testimony aud construc tion ; and unless there' be some measure of'guilt, eome pui pose, or sorae act of force, of violence, I canuot find in raift- taken, erroneous acts of excees of authority, making.no imprcaaion upon the fabric of the governraent, or ginnff^ either menace or injury to the public Bervice, any fouuda*- tiou for this extraordinary proceeding of impeach (nentJ Am I right in saying tbat y;ou must give your judKhientpr gailty or. notguiltyr notof-apts set forth in the aa'ticlcB, but a^ guilty or no% guiit^.ofhigh crime aaduusdemQantv* IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 251 as charged ; that ypu will have tha question as distinctly ett iis in tlio Peck aud Chaae trial?, aud not the questions aa used hi tho Pickeritig trial, for the hour»rable inanager (Mr. Wilaou) dcnouncos thp latter as a mnckerv of jufrticc and finding of the.mutrrial facts, leaving no concluaion of law or judgment to be.fpiii^d by anybodv. Thereis another 'point of limitation of the. Pre^'idont'a authority, ftacoutumed in botli, tho-act-of'l795mnd the ^lot of 1863. which hna been made the subject of some commout by the leaiiiod aud honorable manager, Mr: Boutwell. It is, that any how aud any Way, the President h^a been guilty of El high crime aud qiisdemenni -r, lio wovcr innocerit otherwise, bocauscthe Sif mouths' limit accorded to him by the act of 1795 or/by the; act of 1863 hud aU-eidv ex pired before he appointed (jrcneral Thomas. Well, I do not exactly undcratandibc reasoning of the honorable mfiua- ger. . Isiit it is definitely iWritteu down, and word?, I fluppoee, ' have tlieir ordinary , meauing. How it is that therrcsidcut is chargeablu vvith haviiif^ filled a vacaucy thus occurring, oil the, 21.tC of February, 1868, if It occurred at all, by an appQiutment which hp made ad interim on that day, because his six months' right had expired, -; I do not underatand. It is an attempt to connect it in some v.ay ¦\\ith the precediug buanension of Mr. Stantou, which certainly did not create a vacancy in the oifice; uo matter, then, whe ther' the gusbeuqion waa unpor the Civil Tenure net or nhderthe act of 1796, the office was not vacant until the removal. Now there remnins nothing to be considered, e"xcept about au Od interna appniutmout as occurring duong .1, sesaiou pf .the Seuate or during the recess. An effort uas been niade to connect a diaeriui in ation between aseesionof thcSdnate aud a recess of the Seuate iu ita operation ou the riglit of ad intervm appointraent with the discriraination which the Coustitutiou makes between filling the ottice duriug the session, aud tbo limited com missiou T^'hich is perraitted duriugthe recess. Butsutfi- ^ent, I iiuagipei for all purpoaes of conviuciug your judg ment, hiisbeeu showu to prove that a temporary appoinj- meht dooB not reat on constitutioual provipions at all; that it not a filling ofthe oifice^ but that the ofiice remainia just as vacant, eo far as the conetitutioual right and duty re.- maius, a^ if the temporary appointment had not been made. When the final appointraent IB made it dates so as to' siinply the pl^-ce of the perrfone whoee vacancy led to the adinterim. appointraenl, aud ia the very uature of things ' there can be no diiference iu tbat capacity between: the recees aud the aceaiou of the Senate. Wchave been able to preseut on the pages of this record cases enough applica ble to tbe heads or departraents to make it unnecessary for rae to argue the matter , auy further upon general principles. %}: Evarta, iu this connection, referred to th© ad m?mm apipointiuente of Mr, Neleon, in the State Do- partraenttou the 29th of February, 1844; of General Scott, ' Ul the War Department, pn the 23d of July, 18"^: .ot Mr. Moebe Kelley, in, the Interior Department, Juno 10. 1861 ; ahd of General Holt, in the War Departmeut, on the let Of June, 1861. ' Mr. EVARTS continued :— And now, having passed through all possible allegatious of infractions ¦ of the statue, 1 come . to ¦ the consideration of the re moval of Mr. Stantou, which is charged as a high crime aud misderaeanor iu the first article, and wliich has to be paased upon b.v thia eourt, Under that imputation, and under the Presideut's defen've, the crime, aa charged, raay be regarded as the only one on which judgment is to be paeeed. Tbe necessary conceeeion to thia obviotis suggestion will relieve mo very much frora the dimculty of any protracted discussion. Before tiiking up the form of tho artielo andthe consideration of the facts of the pr"cednre,, X aak attentiou uOw to some general lights to be thrown both ou the conetruction of tbe act b^ the. debates in OongTeas, aud by the relations of the (Jabi- net, as proper witneaaes iu reference to the purpoae or ' intent of the iPrtssident. x ^ • u v i* Most extraordinary raeans .havebeen presented in behalf ofthe House of Representatives in reference to Cabinet Ministers. 'T^e personaUdegradation fastened upon them by the honovable manager (Mr. Boutwell) I have surn- cientlv referred to ; aud 1 recollect that there are in your number two or three other honorable Senators— the honor able Senatorfrom Maryland CMr. Johnsou}, and the honor able Seuator from^dowa (Mr; Harlan)— who must take their share of the opprobriiim which I yeaterday 4mded among three raerabers of the court alone., , ,. .^. ' The ability of the President to receive ind and direction fromtheseheads-of departmenta, haa beeu presented as a dangerous innovation, as a sort of Star Chamber council, which was to dovotir our libertiea. Perhapa eorae raeni- hereof this honoraJblo Senate raay have already had their views changed on ijfehat. subject since the time when a representation was made to President Lincoln in reference to^ia Cabinet, to whibh-'I beg to call the attention of, the Mr EVARTS read on this point the remonstrance, signed by twenty-five iSeuatore, and dddreaaed.to Mr. Lin coln, on- the aubji'Ct of recainiug Mr. Blair ih hia Camnct, stating that the theory of tho governtrient ie. and should, be, that a Cabiuet must agree with the President in politi cal principlea, and that auch selection and choice ahould be ¦ made ae to eecure iu tho Cabinet unity of purpoae and ac tion: thatthe Cabinet should be exclusively cora_posQd of Btateameu .who are cordial, -rdsolute and uuvaryiu_g , sup portera of the.principles and pm'poaes of, lhe Adraimstra- > Senator JOHNSON inqnired what'the date of the paper Mr. EVARTSsaid the paper has no date, hut the re- markp, 1 think, were made s^rae time in the vear 1kG2 ^^t VSoA. It ^\as a fraui^hition and a juncture ivliich 1^1.^- miliar to tlie rccollcetiun uf Sonators who tonk p»rt iult, aud, doubtless, to ;ill the public men whinn ] Itavo uot the lion6r tp addreas. Now* the honorable manM^ersan belialf of theHoutc ot Kem-cseutativea do not hold "tn tbia idea at all ; not at all : aud 1 must think thnt the conr.^e of events accord iu its admini-'tration ot the laws of cvidt-nce as uot enabling the J-'rehidrnt to produce ¦the suppoj-ting aid of his Cabinet, which, as this paper savs, he ought to have iu al,l li^rj measures and vie>vs,has eitficr proeeeded on tho grouud that hia action, 'in your judgiiieiiit. aid not need any explanation or snpport. or el.'ie on Ehd ground that 3'ou have.not auflieiently held to these usettil viewt^ abont the Cabiuet, ^\-hich were presented tn the No tice of Mr. Lincoln, Public ruraor has eaid- and foi- the truth of whieh I du not vouch, aa I have no knuwlcdee' of it— that Mr.Xincoln rather blunted the ed^e oi tliat repre sentation by suggesting that what the honoriible S.^niitors wanted was tbat "'Iiia Cabiiiet- ebuuld as''ce with tlieni rather thau with him." ¦ ^ How.cvsrthat may bc, fhe doctrines iu that papor Are true, and are accoi'd.mt to tbe precedents ofthe conntrv and the law of the gjjvermneiit.i au.d 1 find it, therelore. quite I'lnnccesaary to refute, by any very serious or ]>ro- louged argument, tho imputations r>riuveld .on to hie pl.icein defiance an^ against the iwiabos of hisiohief." Bit. never theleaa, this practical lack of huportaucc iu the ni'-aeure which induced the Senato tu yield their opinion.^ of re};ii- latingt^'iiJ governmental proceedinga, und to ¦permit tho modification 'of the bill, led to the euatuient aa it uow appeiirg. ¦ Aud the qneetion is hpw tbia raatter waa uuderstood not by one i^an, uot by- one speaker, but, ao faras tho record sliows, bv, the whole Senate, on the question of tlie con struction of tfie act aa inclusive of Mr. Stanton, or lof any other incurabent of a Cabinet position. V/heuthf Con ference Committee reported the section asit now reads— tis the result of the corapromise between the Senate, firm in ita viPwB, 'and the Houee, firm iu ita purpoae— the honora ble Senator froili Michigan (Mr. Howard) asked that the proviso might be explained. Now you are at the very .point of fiudlnp out what It means, when the Senate got sq far as to a.-^k those who had charge of the niatter aud who werefuUv competent to advi.se about it. The honorable Seuator, Mn Williams, atates tliat the tenure of oH^co of tbo Cabinet ministers ehall expire wheu the term pf pjfice of tbe President by whom they Were appoiuted expiree, and ho wont- on to aay, "I have, from the beginning of this controversv, re garded thia ae quite .immaterial, for I have uo doubt that any Cabinet oflicer, who. hae a particle of flelf-respeeC, and I cau hardly au^ppOee that any, man would occupv so re apousible a poeition without it, would ei»ntin'ie to remain inthe Qabinet after t^e, Preeideut had aiguified to him that hie pteseuce Waa' no longer needed. "4-s a matter of cpureo'the effect of the^rovieion amounts to very little. one I way or the other, -for' I presume that whenever the President thinks propei* to'rid himaelf of an bffeusive Cabiuet miuister, he bas osiy to signify tha't de- Mre, and the luiuiater will retire and the new appointment b'e made.^' Ml\ Sherman eaid, '*! agree to the- report of the Committee of Conference with a great deal pt reluc tance. I think that uo gentleraan, no man (Ji ar^seEie, ¦ of houor, would hold a poaition aa Cabinet officf-T afier his chief desires his removaL and, therefore, the slighteat inti- mation on the part of the Preaident would always secure the resignation of tho Cabinet otficer, for that reaaon I do not wish to jeopard thia bill about au unimportant and collateral queetiou." Mr. Sherman proceeds fmther, in answer to ihe demand of a Seuator to Know from the ctjbimittee what it had 252 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. done an'd what the operation of the li^w was to be, and saye:- "The proposition uow submitted by fhe Conference Coraraittee ie, fhat a Cabiuet Minister shall hold his office during the life or terra of the PreBident who appointed him. If the Preaideut dies the Cabinet goea out. If the Preaident is removed for cause by irapeachraent, the Cabi net goes out ; at tbe expiration of the term of the Presi dent's office the Cabinet goea out." Now, how iu the face of thia cau we with patience listen to loug arguments to show that in refereuce to a Cabinet Minister, situated as Mr. Stanton is. the whole object of lamentation in the proviso and in the bill becoraes nuga tory and uuprotective of the Presideut's right, and forcea upon hira Cabinet officers whom he never appoipted at all, and how shall we tolerate, this argument that the term of a President lasts after heie dead, and that the terra in which Mr. Stantou waa appointed by Mr. Lincoln lasts through the succeeding term to wliich Mr, Lincoln was -. subeeauently elected. But that is not the point. You are asked to remove a Preeident from office under the stigraa of irapeachraent for crime, to etrike down the ouly elective head of the go vernment whora the actual circum etau eee permit the Conatitution to have recourae to, and to aaaurae to yourself the sequestration aud administration ofthat office ad in teriTti, becauae a President is guilty of thinkmg that Mr. Sherman, in behalf of the Conference Coramittee, was right in explaining to the Senate^ what the Conference Coraraittee had done. Nobody contradicted him ; nobody wanted auy further explanation. Nobody doubted that there waa no vice or fault in that act. That iu undertaking to recognize a limited right of that PresideuJ. it was not intended to ¦ have Cabiuet Miniatera retained in office whora he had not had any voice in appointing. I would like toknow who it is in thia honorable Senate who will bear the iseue of the ecrutiny of tbe revising peo ple of the United Statee on the reraoval from office of the President for the removal of an offlcer whora the Seuate has thus declared not to be within the protection of the Civil Tenure act. Agree that judicial decisiou may after wards pronounce a different j udgraent, still, you must ad mit that the Preaideut raight well act as he did iu de ference to the opinion of Mr. abermau, even if judgment of au inferior court, to say nothing of the Supreme Court, or of the highest special judicature this court should deter mine otherwise. But the matter was brought out a little more distinctly, Mr. Doolittle haviug said that the proviso would not keep intbeSecretary of War, and that that had beon asserted ae the object of the bill. Mr. Sherman, still representing the ConfiTence Committee, proceeds to say "Thatthe Senate had no such purpoae as was shown by its vote twice to make this general exception." That this provisions does not apply to the preaent case ia ahown by the fact that its language is so framed as not to apply to the present President. Now, that was pretty definite on that subject. The Seuator shows that himself, and argues truly that it would not prevent the present Preeideutfrora reraoving the Secretarv of War, the Se cretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of State, ahd he goes ou to say:— "If I could auppose that either* of those gentleraen were so wanting m manhood gpd in honor^ as to hold his place upder the politest iutiipation by the President of the United Statesi tbat his services were no longer needed, I would, certainly, as a' Senator, consent to his removal, and eo would we all." Aud yet later, iu continuation pf his explanation, the sarae honorable Senator says:— "We provide that a Cabi- - n.AtMiuieter fihall hold his office not for a fixed term, not until the Senate shall consent to his removalj but as long as the power of apnointing him holds oflSce ; if the princi pal oflice is vacated his Cabinet Ministers go out." Now, Seuatore, I press upon yoiir consideration the in evitable, the inestiraable weight of thie Senatorial dlsciis- , Bion and concluaion. I do not preas it upon the particular Senatora who took part in it apecially. I prees it upon the conenrringj unresisting, assenting, agreeing, counrming, corroborative silence of the whole senate. And I would ask if the Preaideut of the United Statea ' and his Cabiuet, haviug before thera the question for their own solution, ot tbe ambiguities and diliicultiee, if there be any, as I think there are not, of thia sectiou, might not he repose upon the sense of the Senate that that body would not have agreed to a bill if it had any such efficacy' as is now contended for, and might, he not repose ou the explanation cf the Conference Conifbittee, and of the ac- ceptaaice of it by the Senate, that the bill had no auch pos sible construction or force. Nevertheless, if the President must be convicted of a high crime and miedemeanor for' thia concurrence with your united judgraent, andif that sentence aleo proceeds on vour united judgment, we shall havevery great ditJi-' culty in knowing which of your united judgments is enti tled to moat regfird. In the House this matter was considered, and the result ofthe explanation there by Mr. Schenckr waa aboutthc same as iu the Senate, and the House carae to the sarae! conclueion. Thewhole great matter here is an ittipeach- mentbythe Houae for making a removal, and a condera-' nation by the Seuate on the same ground, and we aro brought, therefore, to the conaideration of the meaning of thoact, of ita conatitutionality, of the right ofthe Presi dent to put ita constitutionality in issue by "proper and' fieaceful proceedinge, or of hia right to doubt and differ on he construction ofthe aection, and to proceed honestly , and peacefully, aa he might feel himtelf best 'advised todo. And now I may hero at onco dispose of what I may have to say definitely in auswer to sorae propositihns inai^itud upon by the honorable manager (Mr. 'Boutwell). He has nndertaken to dieclose to yon his views of the result ofthe debate of 1789, and of the doctrines of the government as they are developed, and he h as not hesitated to claim that the liraitation of thoae docfrines was confined tb appoint- menta duriug the sesaion of the Senate. Nothing can be less supported by the debate or by the practice of Jtjie go vernraent. In the whole of that debate, from the beginning to the end, there is uot any suggeetion of the dietinctiun which the honorable managers nave not hesitated to lay down in print for your guidance ae to the reeult. The whole ques tion waa otherwise— whether the power of removal re- eided in fhe President absolutely? If it did, why shoidd he not remove at one time as well as another? The power of reraoval would arise when the eraergeucies dic tated instant actdon. We underetand that when the removal ie political, or proceeds frora the principle of rotation in office, aa we call it, tbe whole notice of removal is the new appointment. The new appointraent is the firet thought and iseue. There is no desire to get rid of the old officer except for the par- pose of getting in the new one. The forra of the notice, as m the last caee on your table— the appointraent of General Schofield— ie that A. B. ie appointed iu place of C. D., not to be r&nfvoved, but removed, meaning, ''I, as the PreBi dent, haveno powerto appoint unlesa thereis a vapancy, I tell you, the Senate, that I have made a vacancy ; br.I present to you the case of a vacaucy created by ray will, and I name to you A. B,, to be appointed in the place of C. D,, removed." That is the meaning of that action of tbe government, Now, ybu will observe that there have been only two cases in the historyof the governraent where there liaa been a separate act of reinoval, either dating the ses sion of the Seuate or during the recess, of Cabinet officers. You can hardly suppose au instance in which a removal of a Cabinet officer could he poasible, becauee, in the lan guage of the honorable Senator, you can hardly conceive of the possibility of a Cabinet officer not resigning when it is intimated to nim that his place is wanted. Therefore all this pride of exultation that we have found no' cases of reraoval of a Cabinet officer, save that of Timothy Pickering, rests upon Senator Shevrartn^s prppo- eition that you cannot conceive of the possihility Or there being a Cabiuet officer who would need?to be removed. The practice of our govemraent has shown that thow honorable Senators were right iu their proposition, and .that there uever has been, from the beginniug of the go vernmeut to the present tirae, more than tvvo caeea whero there were Cabinet rainieters who, onthe slightest intima tion frora their chief, did not resign. Therefoi-e do not urge upon ua the paucity of the caae of reraoval of heada of departments, as that paucity riscB on the fact of the retire ment whenever the President desired it. Mr. Pickering, having nothing but wild lands for Ms my port, aud having a faraily to provide for, frankly told Mr, Adania that he would not resign, because it would not bs convenient for hira to raake any other arrangement foi' living till the cud of his term ; and the Prepident, without tbat coneideratiou of domestic reaaons which liethaps Mr. Pickering hoped to obtain, immediately told him that' he would remove him, and he did; and Mr. Pickering went "back to his, wild lands. ' Now Mr. Stanton, under motivee of pnblic duty, as he eaye, took the position that the public interest would not allow him to retire ; and theae are the only two cases in our governraent in which the questiou has arieen. In the one caae the Secretary was instantly removed; and in the other caae au attempt was made to remove him; there fore the practice of the government could be expected to suggest only the peculiar caees where promptitnde and necessity for the rough method of removal vrere demanded at the hands of the'Executive. I ask tbe attentiou of' the honorable court to the casea we have preaented in our previous arguments— instancea of removals during the sessions of the Senate. Mr. Evarte recapitulated theae caaes, aud continued:'^ Now I ara sure that the honorable (Senators will give their assent to the propositions Ihave submitted; that inrefer- euce to Cabiuet officera it ia alraost impossible to expect removala; that in reapect to subordinate officers, charged with any criminality, their resignation is generally pro cured by their sureties, or bv their own senae of shame, or by their diaposition to give no trouble. I think you will pe satisfledi-alao, with the propositiou assented to by every statesman, I think asseuted to by every debater OQ ,the passage of the Civil Tenure act, that the doctrine, and the action, aud the practice of the government had been for the Preaident to remove in session or in receRB, although pome discrimination of that kind was attempted, But I have alreadjy argued to show that there ia no dia- crimination of uie power of removal toetween the time duriug a session aud a recess. Look at it|iu this.point of view. The Senate is in bcbbioBi aud a public officer is carryiM ou frauds either at Saa Francisco, or New York, or Hong Kon^vor Liverpool or wherever else you please, and the fact comes to the knowledgeof the President; the «eSBion ofthe Senate la going on, but the fact of the President's knowledge doM not put hira in posseasion of a good man to succeed the officer, eitber in nia own approval ,or in the approval of tlie Senate ; and if it is necessary that the Consul at Hong Eong, or at, Liverpool, or the Siib-Ti'easurer at NeW York, or the Master of the Mint at San Francisco, should go on with his frauds , until the president finds aman and sends him oGt, arid gets liie assent, and gets him qualified, vefy well, Itis uot the kind pf law adapted tothedTcum- stances of the caae. That is all lean venture to suggest. No cpnatruetion and , uo practice^ of tl^ gbvetnmenc IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 253 while the Executive Department was nntrammelled by the legislative restriction hae ever shown a discriraination between eession and recese in regard to reraovals frora office. Of course, a difTe;fcnce has been.6hoiVn in regard to political appointraents.N And uow th&t I come to con- ai^r the actual raerits of the nroceeding nf the President, having given the precise construction to the first spction of the hin,.I need to a?k your attention to a reraarkable con cession made by Mr. Manager Butler in hie opening, that if the Pi'esident, had accomplished the removal of Mr. Stanton iu a raethod, the precise terraa of which the honorable manager was so good as to furnish, there would have been uo occasion for impeachment. Itisnot, then, after all, the f arbiter in re, which the manager coinplaius of, hnt the suaviter in modo, aud you, aaa court, and the honorable managers, under our argu ments, are reduced to the necessity of removiug the Preei dent of the United States, not for the act, but for the forra andsfvlcin which it was done.- But raore definitely the honorable raanager, Mr. Boutwell, has laiddovf n two finn aud atrong propoeitions bearing on the merita of the case, andl will aak vour attentiou to thera. We argue that if the Tenure of Oifice act ia unconstitutional we had a right to obey the Conetitution, at least iu the intent and purpose of a peaceful Bubmieeion of the matter to the conrt; and that our j udgment iu the raatter, if deliberate and honeat, and if ennporfed by diligent application to -the proper BourcCB of iuformation, is entitled to support ua againat an Immitiitiou of criii e. To meet that, aud to protect the case from the inquiry which *.ve proposed, the honorablemauager (Mr. Boutwell) does not hesitate tosay^ that the question of tlie constitu tionality or unconBtitutionalify of the lavv doea not make the least difference in the world ; that the point is, that the Hw has been violated, and that for the President of the United States to violate an unconstitutional law is. an act worthy of his removal from ollice. Now raark the desperate result to which the reasoning ofthe honorable managere, under the preeeiire of our argu- menta, haa reduced thera; that ia, their propositiou, aud the reaaon of thia propoaition is given in these terras:- "If thatia not HO, if the question of^ the conetitutionality or uncon.-'titutionalitv 01 the'act ia perraitted to come into Sour conaideration of crime, theu you would be puuiahiug le President for au error of judgraent; releasing hira or condemning him, according as he exerciaed it, right or wrong ;" and tliat, the honorable manager tells us, is con trary to the first principles of justice. The argument of the manager is iu theee words, to be found ou page 815 of the record :— "If the President, in the diecharge ot his duty to take care that the lawe be faith fully executed, may inquire whother the laws are conati tutional, and execute those onlv which he believee to be 80, theu for tho purposes of government hie ivill or opinion is Bubatituted for the actiou of the law-making power, and the govornment ia no longer a governmeut of law, but the governmeut of oue man. This ia alao true if, when ar raigned, he may justifv liinself that he has acted upon advice that the law was uucou ati tutional. "Further, if the Scnate,''>'ittiug for the trial of the Preai-, dent, may inquire and decide whether the law ie, iu fact, conetitutlonal, aud convict the President if he naa vio lated an act belijved to be coustitutional, and acquit him, if the Senato think the law uucoostitu tional, the Preai dent ie, in fact, tried for his judgiricnt; to. be acquitted, ifi in the opinion of the Senate., it waa a correct judg ment, aud cou\ icted, if, in thepoiuion of the Senate, his jiidgmeut was erroneous. This doctrine ofiTeuds every priu- ciple of jnstice ; hia oflfenae is, that he intentionally violated a Jaw ; kno w ing its terma and reOiUiremeute, he diaregarded Uiem." '' Wed. that is what we aay, it does offenae to every prin- lilple of juatice,- to eay that the President should be con victed because he honeetly and peacefully sought to have a decision raade between the Constitution and the law. And the houorable raanager cau escape from our argu ment on that point by no other mode than by the despe rate recourse to this declaration, that coustitutional laws " and unconstitutional laws are all alike in this couutry of a written Constitution, and that every one who violatea unconstitutioual law meets with the same kind of punish ment as, he who violates constitutional lawa. This confusion of ideas as to a law being valid for any parpoae, if uuconatitutioual. I have already sufficiently exposed in the geueral arguraent. No Senator, according to Mr. manager BoutweU, ou page 816, haa aright to be governed by hie judgment, even if satiafied that the law is linconstit utional. You raay all regard the law as uncon- Btitutioual, and yet you have got to remove the President. Now that is pretty hard upon usi that we cannot eveu go to the Suprerae Court to find out if it is uncouatitutional; that we cannot regard it in our own oath of office as uu- conatituLional, and that you cannot do it either. Novv, ou tile question of the construction of the law, what are tho vie«'B of the honorable raanagera? We have dairaed that if the Preeident, in good faith, coristrued thia law to not include Mr. Stanton.underita protection, aud if he weut ou under that opinion, he cannot be guilty. 'J'ha honorable manager (Mr. Boutwell) take^ up thia question, and diapoaes of it iu thia very peculiar manner :— ' If a law passed by Congrees Jte equivocal or ambiguous in its terms, the ExecutiveTaeiu^alfed up thereupon withont evil intent or purpoae, aud that he would be fully justified in doing ao, and that ou uo princi ple of ri^ht cau he be held to answer for a misde raeanor iu office. And what is the auswer which the honorable managers wish to that logical propo sition? Why, that this act ia not of that sort; that ie as plain as the nose on a man's face, and that nothing bnt violent reaiatancc to ri'jht could lead anvbody oiitaide of this. Senate to donbt what the act meant. The houorable raanager who followa rae will have ail opportunity fo correct mein my Btatement ofthe propo sition, and to furnish an adequate answer to the views which I have the honor uow to preeent. And uow for tbe act iti^elf. It provides "thatevery person holding any civil office, to which he had heen appointed by and with the ad vice and coneent ofthe Senate, and every person who shall hertiafter be appoiuted to any such office, is and ehall be entitled to hold auch office until hie eucceesor ehall in like manner be appointed, and shall have qualified, except aa herein otherwise provided." Then the provision otherwise is "That the Secretary of State, ofthe Treaeurv, of War, aud the Interior, the Poef^ master-Greueral, and the Attorney- General, shall hold tbeir office reepectively for aud diiring the term of the President bv whom they have beeu appointed, and one raonth thereafter, aubject to removal by and with tbe ad vice and consent of the' Sonate." Now that is the opera tive eection of thia act. The section of crimination so far as relates to reraovale, I will read, aud orait all tbat relates to au7 other matter. The eixth section providee that every removal contrary to the proviaiona ofthe acta ahall be deemed to be high mia demeanor, and shall be puniehed bya fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or by imprisonment uot exceeding five yeara, or both, in the discretion ofthe court, "it ou will observe tbat this act does uot affix a penalty to nnj'thing but a removal- an accomplished removal— acts of a penal natnre are to be conatrued strictly, and whenever we ask that necessary protection of the liberty, the prapnrty and life of a citizen of the United States under a penal statute, we are told that we are doing some very extraordinary thiug for a lawer in behalf of his client. We are toldJu eff'ect that when we have a President for adefendant. all the law writers die and wither, and poli tics and political couatructione have a predominauce, and that everything of law, nf evideuce, and of justice, is nar rowed and not enlarged. Well, that raaybe; all that I . can say ia. that if the President had boen indicted imder this act, or if he shall be hereafter iudicted under it, the law of the laftd would apply to his case a" usually ad- rainietered, and tbat if he has not reraoved Mr. Stantou, he caunot be punished for having done it. The act might have provided a puniahraent for an attempt to remove, bnt see what it has done; it hae provided a puuiahment for S.ny peraon who received p.uy appointment or employ ment contrary to, the provisions of the act, but it has not provided a punishment for auy attempt at removal. N^ow, what does the article charge in that behalf, for I behove it has npt been claimed, aa yet, that it is too nar row toln.'»ist tbat the crime as charged iu the articles will be the one you onehttotry. Removal is not charged iu the articles anyvvhere. The allegatiou is that Andrew Johnson unlawtylly, and in violation of the Constitution, issued an order iiiy.'riting for the reraoval of Edwiu M. Stanton, with inti^nt to violate the act, and with intent to remove him, the Seuate being in seeaion. Now, if you had a sectiou iu the statute which said that auy removal, or the signing of any letter, or order or man date of renioval was a crime, thou you would have an indictment and a crirae ou which you could proceed. But you have neither crirae nor indictraent, as appeare iu the firet article. It is said that, iu so small raatter as the question ofthe removal of the Preeideut it doea not do to insist onthe uaual ridca of conetruction of crirainal law. Now, what was the true attitude of Mr. Stanton and ofthe President towards this offiee aud this officer at the tirae ofthe aUeged infraction ofthe law? Mr. Stanton held a perfectly good title to that office by the coraraisaion of a.Preaident of tbe United States— to hold it according to the terma of the commission, "during ¦ the pleasure ofthe President for the time beiug." He held a good title to that office. A'quo warranto moved against hira while he held, that commisaion, uuremoved. unan- nulled, and undetermined, would have beeu answered by the production of the' coraraieeion. He would have anewered, "I hold this office at the pleasure of the ^Presi-- dent of the United States for fho time beiug, and I have not been removed by the President of the United States." That waa the only title he held up to the pasaage of the Civil Tenure act; but by the passage of that act it ia said tbat a statutory title was vested in him— not proceeding fi-oratheexecutivepower of the United States at all, not conAnisaioned by the Exacutive of the Uuited States at ail— and superadded to the title from the executive au thority which he held. This gave hira a durable office, determinable ouly one month after tho expiration of the Presidential term. The hint question to which I ask your attention is thie 264 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. that the act is wholly uncpnRtitutionaLand inoperative in cniiferrin^ on Mr. Stautonipr,, anybody else, a durable of fice to whichhe has never, been appointed. Appointraents to all offices proceed frora the President of tbo United States, or from snch heads of departments, or- such courta of l.'vw as your legislation may vest, them in. Yon canuot administer, appointments to^ffice yourselves, for while tbe Goustitution requires the President to have the control you canuot confer it anywhere else. The appointment of the Secretary of War is one which cannot be takeu from the Prci-ident and conferred upon a court of ;laM", or upon thelieads of departraents.' That f^'f- fice ia conferable only by the Executive, and when Mr, Stauton, or anybody else, holda an office during pleasure, which he haa received by comraisaion from the President of the United States, you pau no more confer upon hira by your authority atn appointment and title, durable aa, againet the President ofthe United States, thauvyou can if he were out of office altogether, I challenge contradiction from the lawyera wbo oppose ua, and frou^ the judgment of honorable aud intelligent lawyera here. Where arc you going to carry thie doctrine of legislative appointment to office? If j'^ou can carry it the case of a man whom the Preaident haa never asljied to hold aai office, - except frora da.v to day. and you can enact hira into a durable ofiice for life, you may determino that an office shall be hold for teu years, if yon please. You raay deter raiue that an offiee shall bcheMior Ufe. But.the discro-; tion andi,iudgm©ut of appointing to anipffiee for life is very different from his appointing to a;n pffice during his plea sure and whore he can change tne jncumbe-nt at will. . "You may sweep all 'the oifices of tho country, not only into the Senate, but into' Cougj'eaa, if you adopt this prin ciple of enacting people into office ; and if by an act of Con gress, you can confer the tenure of an office which is held atsuffrance or at will into estate for life- for teu years, then you cau appoint to oflico. , Df that there can beno doubt. The next, and the only question of construction or of constitutionality, js whether the Secretaryof War ia withiu tho first aection of the act. The office of the Secre tary of War is undoubtedly within the fir.st i-ectinn. The question, therefore, ie whether the provision con cerning theolfico is of sucli force and effect as to put Mr. Stanton into office against the will of the President, by statutory terme. The argiuueut that if Mr. Stanton is not within the provieo, then ho is within the bodv of the -Sec tion, yfumblee over this fallacy. The questiou ia, whether tbe oifice of Secretary of War is witbiu the proviso or not. ; You have not made a law about Mr. Stauton bv name, and the-que='tion vvhether Mi', Stauton i.^iu it, or whether- Mr, Bro'vuingifl in it or uot, is uot a questiou of Coristitu- tior^or law. ¦ ' , Mr. Bvarts proceeded to argue at anmo length on thia point to prove that while the Tenureof Office aet applied to the ollice of Secretary of War, it did not, or conld uot ap Iv to the incumbent ofthe office for the time being." Mr. Evarte reeumed:- Let us now consider v.'hat the Prerident did, assuming that the etatute covers-Mr. Stan ton's case, and assuming that theremoval of Mr. Stan on was priiliibited by it. I have said to . you that Mr. Stan tou had an appointment to the offi,ce, dopefldent on the President's pleasure. He claimed, or othera claimed for hira, that he had a tenure depend,ing on the" statute, . The question of dependency on the statute was a question tO' be weighed and determiued as a novel oue. , , The gutation of tenui-e bv appoiutmeut waa undebat- able. The i'resident proposed to put himself iu an atti tude of reducing the tenure of Mr. Stantou to hia statutory, tenure, and, therefore, he i=3Ued a paper, whieh is a rev"- catiou of ills commissiou and a recall ofthe officer. With-' out that queation. u'hatever could be .raised by auy pro ceas OU the statutory teuure, becauae tenure, by commie- eiou from the Predident, would be au adequate auswer to a mto loarranto. The President thus peaceably, iu writing, and deco rously leauod a paper, wiiich is served ou Mr. Stanton, saying, in effect, '1, the President of the Uni;ted. States, by BUDh authority aad have, relieve or remove you from the olfiee of Secretary of War," That xvasa recall of tho title dein'Cd from tlie Presidential appoiutmeut. Nobody can doubt Mr. Stantou refused to yield the oflice. Did *he President thou interpose im'ce to terminate Mr, Stanton ',a statutory title; or did he, having thus reduced them to the conditinu his statutory titl'j, propose to te?t that title? It is enongh to aay he did not. do ani'tliing in the way of force; that he expected in Advance, aa it appeare frora bis statement; to General Sherman, that -Mr. Stantou ^rrould yield the offioe. ' ¦ , , , , But Mr. Stanton did not yield it. The grounds on which he put himflelf in Anaust were, "that his, duty required hira to hold tho office till Congress nietj" That is, to hold it so that the. President's appointment could uot take effect witiiout the concurrence of; tho 'Senate. This public- duty of Mr Stanton, on hia own statement, had ex-' pired. Mr. Stauton had told tho President that the act was unconstitutioual, and had aided him iu writing the mesaagr which ao disclosed the President's opiuion, and had concurred iu the- opinion that he waanot withia. the act aubiuiisive to thoee views,; if not sub- niis,'ivc to the views to which . Senators here had oxprcesed, "that uo mau could ba supposed toi refuse to- five up lus ofiice after an intiinatinn. frara hiachiuf that' „i'^ ^'Xi'vices vVere no longer. needed, waa to be expected ti'om Mf Stanton. If, wheu Mr.Stantou having sai* to txcueral ihouiar, on the firat preseutatum of ¦ hi.-^ Creden- tills, that he witfJied to know whether Geueral Thomas decirodJiim to vacate at once or would give him time to ^^IVi^. j*^- ''*» I^i'i^'Lte papers; tlie PrcHidunt regarded it as all settled, and so iuformed the Cabiuet, as you have per mitted to be given in evidence; uow, after that, after tbe 2lst of February, w.hat ae* was done bv the Preaident about the offic6 of Secretary of War? Nothiug whatevfer/ Mr. Stanton swore on the 21st, when he got out the war- " rant for G-bheral Thomas, that he was still iu the possegsiott of the oflice. And when General Thoraa^ waa tikeh-ilito custody on that warrant, the President simply said, "Very well, the matter ia in court'" and connsel waa consulted in _ order to have a habeas corpus carried into the Suprenie " Court. But Mr. Chief, Juetiee Cartter, who everl^bodv'wiiiife adraiti'sees ae far into 'a millatone as most people, lettfie' matter drop,Dut of hia court by its own weight,' andthM habeaa cbrpus fell with it. Now that is all the force th^et was. I subrait to you^ therefore, that a cause of rC'Kistance or violation of law does not at all arise. He must ttjen come either to intent, purpose, motion, bo some force prepared, raeditated, threatened or, applied, or some invasion of the actual work of the department in order to give subatance to tbis allegation of fault. No such fact, no euch. iutent, no such purpose is shown, Weare prevented from showing all attendant lie ws, opinions and ' purposes on vi'hich the.President proceeded; and if so, it raust be on the ground that views, intent aud purposes do not qualify the aot. ' ' Very well. Let the managers be held to the narrownesa of their charges, when they ask for jmdgmcut, as they are whenthey exclude teatimony; aud let the case be deter-! ¦ mined on theii' reasoning, that an article framed on'thia^ plau that the President, well knowiiig an act to be unc^h-i stitutional, hjia, in virtue of his office, undertaken to,maKe' an appointment contrary toits proyisions.and. conforinabie to the Constitutiou of .the United States, with the intent that the Constitution of the United States shall prevail in ' relatiou to the office, in ovcrthtowiue the authority ofan act of Cougress, and that, threupou and thereby, vvith an intent against which there cau be no jircsumpuoh; for he has presumed to have attempted to, doV what he did do. ¦We ask that, for that purpoee of, obeying the Conafitutien, rather thap of obeying an invalid.law,, heahi^ll bc reraoyed from office. , ' ' This, as.suredly, is no greater -tbau that 'which the mana gers have committed, for it is but_,a etatement of the pro position of law and of fact; to which tho honorable mana gers have reduced themselves and their own theorica, in tbia vvhich excluded all evidence of intent or purpoae, and of ett'ect and conduct, aud hold thePresident simply fop au infraction of a statute, iu saving that, under your judg-. ment it does not make auy ditterence whether the statute is Lluconstitutional' or not. If that be sp, then we have a right to claira that it is uuconatitutional, and they agree. If you so treat it and fiud -ua guilty, then it would be, against, the first principlee of justice to punish us for our eri'oneous or mistaken opinion conceruiug the unconsti tutionality ofan act. Now^ I do not propose to weary you with a review of the evidence which already lies within tho graHp ofa handful, aud it would aatouiah you, if you liave net already perused the record, to eee how much dependa tn the argu ment and debate a of couneel, and how little included in the testiraony. • As your, attention has beeu turned by the Bi:nplicity and the folly, perhaps, of the conduct of General Ihomae, all your attention must have fixed liteelf onthe fact fhat tq prove this thev threaten a coup d'etat to , overthrow the Government of thf United States and get ertntrol of the Treasury and Wai- Dopartment8.^The,nian&i' I gers had to go to Dela w ai'e to prove a stateraent by Mr.i .Karsner, that twenty daya afterwards General Thomas said he would kick Stauton out. That is the fact ; there is ud getting over it. The coitp (P- etat m Washington, prepared on the Slat Februaiy,' as ^ proved by Mr. Karsner, who is brought ou from DelSr' '^t'^^'i^J^-'?^^*^^^* on the -gth of March, in the East Room' of I the White House,' General Thomassaid he. meant to kick- Mr. Stauton out. Well, th^t now is disvespectful, as unr doubtedly intimating force rather of a personal than of a national act.! think. So it'coraesnp to a breach ofthe jieace, provided it had been perpetrated: (Laughter.) But it does not come to that kind of proceeding bv whioh Louis Napoleon seized the liberties ofthe French Eepnblic. We expected, frora the heat with which this impeach ment wAs atifcoinpanjed, we would find something of this cliaracter. The managers did not neglect little x-ieces of evidence, as shown by Mr. Karsner, and they found that, aud produced it aa a sharp poiut of their cause; then? we raay be.sure thei'c is nothing else ;¦ there ik no bristlmg otbayonete uuder the hay-raovy;, you maybe sure. Aro there then, any limits of discrimination in " transactions of btatey Are there public prOsetfu tions, public danger-s pub lic fearsrpublic nieuacea? Undoubtedly thero maybe;. and^nndou'btedly many persons who voted for iinpeach ment aupBoaed there woi e, audi undoubtedly the people of the Unitud States, when they beard of impeachment, took It tor granted that there waa something to oppose. Thei'e vvas no defect of power or of will on tho part of the mana gera to Bitt it all. , . Every channel of public information was searched. The nowspapera seem to be ardent and eager enouch to aid this prosecution. AU the people of tho United States are united in it.- They love their liberties and thev love their governinont, and if anybodv knew of anything -vvhich would bear upon the queation of fore(rf|aid coup d'etat, we- should have .leard of it. We rausffnheu, submit-^itTi great respoct, that on thiS evidence and on this allegation, tueroie no ease made. out of ovii purpoae^. of large designs 01. auy kmd, aud uo act made whicn ie an iuf faction of a law. , Now, whatis th& attitudo which' you must occupy to wards each particular charge in thoae articles? You muet eay thatithe' President is guilty or not guilty of ahigh IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 255 Wlijaeoramuderaeanor.byrea^on nf charges mado and tiroved. Guilty Of what the Con-,titution means ae.siiiffi- ejent cause for removal ot the Preaident from oifice. ' Ybu , flS'C not to reach. over from ono article to another; you tre to aay guilty, or not guilty," upon each arti- le, and you aro to take it as it appears. You are to treat the President, ot tbe United States for the pur-. pose of that deterraination, as if he waa innocent of evei'.Vthing else-as if he was of good politics and of good conduct. You are to deal with him, under your oath fo admiuiater impartial justice, withiu the premises of the tfecusatiou and of the proof. You are to deal rt-ith him as If itweVePreaidentLincoln orGenernl Grant who was Charged -ivith the same thing. If thu proposition that po litical gratitude is a lively' eenae of benefit expected, leads ijien forward rather thau backward iu the liat of Presi dents, you arc to treat it as if the respondent was inuo cent; asif he was your friend; asif you agreed in pnblic sentinient and public policy with hira; aud, nevertheless, the crime charged aud proved muat be sncu as that you would retuovij General Waabiugton or President Liucoln fbr the same bftehSe. Now, I will uot be told thjlt it was competent far tho managera to prove that there waa a cou;i cCetoniidden, and a purpO:?e of evil to the State threatened .iu that inno cent and formal act. Let them prove it; then let us dis prove it, and then judge us within the corapass of the tes timony, and according to the lavv goveru those considera tions. But I ask you if I do uot put it to you truly, that within tho prcraiecs of the charge aud proof, tlie aame judgment muat go againat President Lincolu, w ith his good politics, and General Washington, with his majestic cha racter, aa against the respondent. And so, as you go .along fromthe firift article to tncsecond, willyou remove hiiu for having coraraitted au error in reference tb a removal from Sfice? If the power of removinR Mr. Stanton under the former ¦rrraetico of the government, unrestricted IJy this Civil Teuure act, existed, it existed during tho aoseion as well as during the I'ecess; If that were debatable and disputable, the prcvaiiing opinion was that it covered, aud the prac tice of the government showed tbat it covered, removals dui'ing the eestdon. At anyrate, you must judge of him iu that matter as, you would bave jisdjred Mr, Liucoln if he had been cliarged v^-ith a high misdemeanor in appointing Mr. Skinner Pofetm aster- General when there was uo au thority to do so. ,And thii briuga rae very prouerly to conaider, as I shall Very briefiy, in. trhat attitude the President stands befbre you, when the diacuaeiou qf Vicioue politics, orofrepug- naiit politics— whichever raay be right or wrong— is re moved from the case. I do not heeitate to eay that,, if you sepjlrate your feeliilga and your conduct, and hid feelinga and hia conduct from the aggravatiou of poliHcs, aa they have been bred aince his elevation to the Presidency, under the peculiar circumetaucea which p]ace4 bim there: ttfld if your views are reduced to'the ordinary staudai-d and style of eatimate which sbould prevail between the, ¦ departments ofthe government, I do not heeitate to say that, ou the impeacbraeut investigatiou, and on the im peachment evidence, ybu have tbe geueral standing of the Preeident unimpaired iu his conduct aud character, as a man or as a magistrate. , I hold that no mau can find in his heart to say that evil haa been proved against him here, and how rauch is there in his conduct towards and for hia couutry, vvhich, up to this period of division, comraends itself to your and to the approval aud .applause of his countryraen. I do uot inciat on this topic, butl aak you to agree with me in thia that his personal traits of character, and the circurastances of b'is career, have made him in opinion, what he is without learning, aa it is said by hia biographer, "Never enjoying a day's schooling in bis life, devoted alwaye to such enevfietic pursuits in tlie service of his Stato aa commended hira to file favor of his fellow-citrzena. aud raiaed him, sten by' 'Step, through all the gradations of the public service iu every trial of fidehty to hia origin aud to the cojnraou interest, proved faithful ; struggling alwaya in his public life against the , ariatocratic infiuences and oppres- Btona which domineered eo much iu the eectiou ot the country from which becarae; he wae always faithful to tlie common interest of the coramou people, and carried, by hia aid aud efforts, as much as any one else, popular measures againat the Soiithern pplicy of ariatocratic go vernment." I ask you to notice that. That bred in a ecliool of Ten nessee Democratic politics, he had aLvays learned to be- ' Ueve that the Conatitution "raust, and shall be preserved," and I atk vou to recognize that when it was iu peril, aud wheu all men south of a certain line took up arms agaiust iSi aud all men north of that line ought to have taken up (unns in politics or in war for it, he loved.the country and the Conetitution raOre than he loyed his section, and. the glbrics which w(^-e promised by the cyil spirita of rebellion. I "aek you vvhetlier he wae not as firra in his devotion to the Constitution wheu he said, in Deceraber, 1860, "Then icfc ue stand by the Couatitution, and. in saving the Uuion, wfe will save this the greatest country on eo-rth." Aud whether aftm- the battle of Bull Run, he did not show aa crl'at adhesion to the Conatitution. when he eaid, 'iThe Cdnatitutiob, which is ba-ed upon principlea iramntablo, an'd ou wliicb resta the rights of man and the hopes aud expectations, of those who love freedom throughout the divilized world, rauat be maintained." , Now he is no rhetoritician, no ^theorist, no sophiat and ndnhil'oBonbcr. the Constitution la tohiiu the oulv polui- SfiTook that he reads; tho Constitution into fum the dm>' great authority which he obe.ye. Hie mmd mayjuot e'S^and! Hi^ Views may not be as plastic as those ot many of hie conhtryraen. Ho raay not think that we have out- li^ed the Constitution, aud he raay uot b.^ ablo to einbribce the iJcclaratiou of Independence ae anperior and predomi nant to it, bnt to the Constitution ho adhercB, for it and under It he has served the State frora boyhood up-labored for, loved it"--for it ho has atood in arme againet tho frownsot the Senate, for it he haa stood in arms against therebelliousfircesof tbe eneray, and toit he ha'i bowed three timea a dav with moro than eastern devotion, Wlien I have heard drawn from the past of impeacb- raeuts and attempts at deposition, and when five liundrod years have beeu spoken of aa furnishing the precedent ex plored by tho honorable managers, I thought that th 'y found uo caae where ono was impeached for obeying a higher duty, rather thau a written law regarded" aa ro. pugnant to it, and yet familiar to every child in thia coun- try, as well as to every scholar. A precedent mucli older comes much nearer to tbis expected entanglement. When the princes came to King Darius, and asked that a>law ehould be made, that whoever should aak any petition fur thirty days, "save of thee, oh King," i>hould be cast into the deu of liona; and when ttio plea was raade that "the law of the Medes and Pen- eiaua alter uot." and uheu fhe minister of that day, the ¦great bead and inauager of the att'aire of that empire, was found still to inaintain his devotion to the superior law which made an infraction of the lower law, there was the case where tho questiou -ivas whether the power to vvhich he had beeu obedient way adequate tn bi'i protection against the power which ho had disobe.ved ; aud now the questiou id whether tho Conetitution is adequate to the protection uf the President for hia obedience to it ni^aiust thelaw whicii the province had obtained, and which !-:cek-. to assert itself agjiin?t it. The result of that irapeachment wo all kuow. Thepi*o- tection of the higher power vvas nnt withheld from the obedient servant. The honorable manager, .Mr. Wilaon, in that very intercriting and valuable ri-imrt of flu- minority of the Judiciary Committee, wai-ued tbe House of the fate of impeachment, as turning alwaya upon those u ho were readv with the axe aud sword to destro.y the victim. Bnt vou may roiuember the history of the fall of certain otlier jinpeaeliers:— "And thev brought t!ioae men which had accused Daniel, and thby cast them into the dcn of lions, them, their children and their wives ; aud the lions had the mastery of tlicm, and brake all their bones in pieces, or even they come at the bottora of the den,"' Tliia., then. Senators, is the issue, not. of politics, but of persoual guilt, within the limits of the charge. Whoever decides it raust so decide and must decide upon that responsibility which belongs to an iufiietion of actual and real punishment npon the respondent. Wc all hold oue another in trust, and when the natural life is taken. He wbo fraraed it deraanda, "Where ia thy brother?" And when under our frame of goyernraenti, wbereby the creation of all departments proceed Ijom the people, which breathes into these depart menta, execntive and legislative, the breatb-of lifo, whose favor is youra as well aathe Preaident'a, containing force and strength, and which aaks of you, aa. your sentence is promulgated. "Where ia thy brother?" In this case uo auawer cau be given that will satisfy thpm, or satisfy you. unleaa it be in truth and iu fact,, that for bis guilt he waa slain by the sword of the Constitution, upon the altar of justice.' If that be tho ansvver you are acquitted, he ia condemned: the Couatitution has tri uraphed, if lid has disobeyed, and n-ot obeyed it, and you have obeyed and uot disobeyed it. Now, povver doea not always spread aud spring frora the aame centre. Ihave seen great changes and great evils corae from this matter of unconstitutional laws uot attended to as unconstitu tional, but aeaeuted to, aud prevailing too, against the Constitution, till at last,, the power ofthe Constitution took another form than that of peaceful, judicial deterraination and execntion, ^ I will repeat some instances of the effecta of the diaobo- dieuce of -unconstitutional Iawa,aud of the triuraph of thoao who maintained it to be right and proper. I know a caae where the State of Georgia undei'took to make it penal for a Christian to preach the Gospel to tho Indians, and X know by vvhose directions the raiseionar'y. determiued that ho would preach the GoapeU aud not obey the law of Georgia, in the aasurance that tbe Conatitution of tho United gtatee would bear hira out, aud the raiseioiv ary, as gentle aa^a woman, but as firra ae every, citizen ¦of the United 'Statea ought to be, kept on with his tcacbiijga, and I kuow the great leader of the raoral and religious sentiment of the G'uited States, who, reiireeent- in^ iri this body the same State aud bearing the same uame as oneof ite diatinguished Senatora, viz:— the State of New Jersey, tried hatd to save, th^ country from the degrada tion, of tbe bppreSi?inn of the Indiana by the haught v plant ers; and the Supreme Court of the United States held tho lavv unconetitutional. aud issued ita mandate, and the State ofGebrgia laughed at it, and kept the iui.5sinnary in pri.-son, and Chief J ueticc Marshall and Judge Story and their colleagues bung their headti at the waut of power iu the Constituti oil to maintain- itaelf. But timo roiled on,, and fi'ora the clouds frora Lookout Mountnin, and swecjungdown Missionary Ridge, canie the thiinderfi of the violatcdT Constitutiou of theUuited States, ¦and the lightnings of it^ power over the still homo of the Missionary Woostor; and the grave of the Missionary Wooatev taught the State of Georgia what comes of vio lating the Oonititution of the Uuited States. T have eaeu au honored eitizeu of tho State of Mas&achuaette. in he- half, of its colored seameu, seek to make acaae byvi-ij. g South Carolina to extend over' these poor and fc-bro en the nroteetiuu of tbe Couatitution of the United Statea. mi 256 IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. I have Been it attended by a daughter, a grandchild of a Bisuer of the Declaration of Independence and a framer of the Constitution, who might be supposed to have a right to Its protection, driven by the Powerot; Charleston, and the power of South Caro ma, and the | mob and tte gentleman aUke-out of thatState and pre vented from making a case to take to.tfe Suprenie Oourt to assert the Constitution; and I have lived to see the case thus made up determined, that if the Massaliusetts uea- men, thrbn?h_the spirit'of slavery, could ,^^^^^^^^^ mountains to the si-a, trampling t>e streets of Soilth Caro lina beneath the tread of his soldiery, and I have thought that the Constitution of the United Statea had some pi o- cesses stronger than civU mandates that no resistance ™i''do°™?° hfnk the people of Massachusetts supposed that efforts to set aside the unconstitutional laws- to make cases for the. Supreme Court of the United States, a e so ¦wicked as is urged here by some of its Pepreaentative^ , Midi believe that, if we cannot be taught By the lessons we have learned of obedience to the Constitution in 0,0 peaceful rc,^thod8offlnding out Its meaning,, we shall yet meet with some other lessons on the subjectj Now the strength of every system is to know its -weakeBt parts and allo«?f..r tliem^; W wh^S.A? ZS^fel L^^LT„'?^„t? If we cannot he kept from devourmB one another, -then the experiment of our ancestors will foil, 'ihey attempted to impose justice. If thai; fails, what .can endure? We have come all at once to the great experience and trials pt a full-grown nation, all of which we .thought we should escape. We never dreamed that an instructed and equal people, with freedom in every form, with .a government yielding tu the touch of popular will so readily, ever would come to the trials of force against it. W« never thought that, whatever oppression ex isted in our Evstem, a civil war would be our deliveranee, from that oppression. We never thought that the re medy to get rid ofa ruler, fixed by the Conatitution, against the will of the people, wpuld ever bring aBBaaama- tion into our political experience. We never thought tliat political difference, and under a created ProaidLncy, would briug in any the departments of tho govemment against one another, to anticipate our choice at the next PreBidential election. , ..... iu We have come to the full vigor of manhood, when the strong passions and intercata that have disturfied other na tiona, conipoFed of human nature like ourselvee, have overthrown them. But we have put "oy the powers of the Constitution. 'Ihese dangei's prophesied when they should be likelv to arise ; as likely to bo our doom, through the distraction of onr powers ; the intervention of irregular power through the infiuence of aaaassinatipn. We could summon from the people a million of men and inexhauatible treasure to help ihe Constitution in its time of need. Can we summon uow, resources enough of civil prudence and of restraint of passion to carry us thrqugh ais trial, here, so that whatever result may follow, m whatev^^ form, the people may feel that the Constitution has received no wound through this court of last and best resort, in its determination here made ; and if we— if you, could only carry yourselves back to the spirits, and the nurpose, and the wisdom, and the courage of the framera of the government, how safe would it be m your hands? How safe is it now in your hands, if you were to enter into their labors and See and feel how your work compares in durability and excellency with theirs. Indeed, so familiar has the course of this argument made Bswith the names of the great men of the convention and the first CongresB.-that I could sometimes seem to think that the prcf^enee even of the Chief Justice i^as replaced by the serene majesty of Washington, and that from Mas- iachuaetts we had Adams and Amea; and from Connecti cut. Sherman and F.llsworth; and from New Jerbcv. Pat terson and Boudinot; and from New York. Hamilton and Benson— that thdy were to determine the caee for us. Act then, aa if under this serene and majestic preaence, your deliberations were to be conducted to their iaaue, and the Constitution was to come out from the watchful soliei- tudea of these great guardians of it, eafe from thoir own judgment, in thia high court of impeachment. At five minutes !iefore three, the Senate took a receas of iifteen minutes. It was nearly half-past three before Mr. STANBERY com menced his remarks, the roll, in the meantime, having been called. Mr. Stanbery prefaced his remarka by saving, as nearly as, a\ ith his back to the gallery, he could be un derstood, that although in. feeble jiealtli, an 'irresistible hnpulae urged hini on, unseen but friendly hands aua tained him, and voices inaudible to others he heard, whia- • pering or aeeming to aay, "Feeble champion of the right, hold, not back. Remember the race is not alwa.veto the switt, nor the hattie to the strong. Remember a single pebble from the brook waa enough to overthrow the giant That dened the armiea of Israel." He proceeded as follows Bubstantially, departing occasionally from the text of the prepared speech as given below. Mr. Stanbery's Argument. Mr. ChiefJustice and Senators :-It is the haDlt of tto advocate to magnify his case ; but this caae best speaks for itaelf For the first time m our political existence, the three great departments of our governnient are brought upon tie scene togetlier-tlM House of Repreiitativesaa tl?e accuaera, the President of the United States as the, accused; the Judiciary Department represented by ig' head, in the person of the. Chief Justice, and the Senate of the United States as the b-ibunal to hear the accusation and the defense, and to ^.render the final iiideinent The Constitution has anticipated that so extreme a remedy as thia might be necc-sBary, even, in the ease of the highest oflieer of ' the government.! It was seen that it was a dangerous povrer tp, sive one department to be used against another deparV Sent Yet. It was anticipated that an emergency might arise in which nothing but snch a power could be effijctual to preserve tho republic. Ilappily for the eighty years of our political existence which have passed, no auch emergency has hitherto arisen. During that time we have witnlsaed the fiercest contests of party. Again and agam the executive and legislative departments, have been in open and bitter antagonism Alayorite logislatiye Poliey has more thau once been defeated by the obslmate and., determined rcsiatance of the President Upon some of the gravest and most important isaues.that .we have ever had. or are ever likely to have, the Presidential policy .and. the Ipgfclative policy have stood in direct antagonianv- During all that time this fearful power was in the hands , of. the legielative department, and more than once a resort to it has Ven advised by extreme party men aa a sure re. medy for party purposes; but, happily, that evil hitherto has not come upon UB. ,. ¦. ^ t, -u l,. . What new aud unheard of conduct by a President has at , laat made a reaort to this extreme remedy unavoidable? What Freeidential acta have happened so flafjrant, that all inat men of all panies are ready to .sny, "the time haa come when tho mischief haa been comnutted ; the evil is at worl^ BO enormous and bo presring that in the la4 year of tM tormofotriee it la not safe to await the coming action of the people?" If auch a ease has happened, all honorajte and just men of all parties will say amen; but it. outhe contrary, it should appear that thiafearful power hasaj last been degraded and perverted to the use of a party; ij it appears that at last bad advice, often hefore given by the bad men of party, has found acceptance, this great tribunal of justice, uow regarded with so much awe, wm,. speedily cotne to be conaidered a monstrous sham. It it. should 'be found to be the willing instrument to carry out the purpoaea of its party, then there remains for it and for every one of its members who participates in the great wrong, a day of awful retribution sure to come npr long.to be delayed. But I willnot anticipate nor speak fiirther of the caae iteelf, until its true features are fully developed, I now proceed to a consideration of the articles ot ink. - peachment :— ,,. .. ^^ ,. ^ . They are eleven in nuraber. Nme of them obarge acta which are alleged to amount to a high -misdemeanor m oMce. The other two, namely, the fourth and swtft, ¦ charge acts which are alleged to amount to a hion crl-im in office. It seems to be takeu for granted that, mthe phraae used iu the Constitution, ¦'other high crimes ano .. misdemeanore," the term hiqh ia properly applicable M , well to raisdeme.inora aa to crimes. The acts alleged in the eleven articles aa amountmg to high miedcuieanops or high criraes are aa followa;— In Article I. the iaauing of the order ot lebruary 21, 1868, addressed to Stanton, "for the removal" of Stanttiw- from ollice, with intent to violate the Tenure of office .¦ act and the Conatitution of the United States, and to re. move Stanton. In Article 11, the isaning and delivering to Thomas of tho letter of authority of February 21, 1868, addressed to Thomas, with intent to violate the Conatitution of the United States aud the Tenure of onice aet. In Article III, the, appointing of Thomas bythe letteF addreeeed to him of the 2lBt of Februarj-, 1868, to be Score- tary of War ad interim, with intent to violate the Constlr tution of the United States. In Article IV, conspiring with Thomas with intent, by intimidatiea and threats, to hinder Stanton from holding his ofiice, in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Conspiracy aet of July 31. 1861. In Article V, conspiring witll Thomaa to hinder the exe cution of the Tenure of Office act. and in purauance ofthe conspiracy, attempting to prevent Stanton from holding hia otHee. ' ... -' In- Article VI, conspiring with Thomas to seize by forcei tho property of the United.Statos in the War Department, then in Stanton's custody, contrary to the Conspiracy act of 1861, and with intent, to violatethe Tenure of Offiee act. , In Article ¦^11, conspiring with Thomas with intent to i seize the propertv of tho United States in Stanton's, cus tody, with intent to violate the Tenure of Otfice act. ¦ In Article VIII, issuing aud deUvering to Thoinas.the let . fer of authority of February 21, 1868, with intent to control the diebursementB of the money appropriati d for the rail> tary serviee aud foi the War Departmeut, contrary to .the Tenure of Office act and the t;onstitution of the UnitM ¦ Statea, and v ith intent to violate the Tenure of Offiee act. In Article IX, declaring to General Emory ^hat the bo- , cond section of the Army' Appropriation act of M.arch ^ , 1867, providing that orders for military operations iaaued by the President or Secretary of War should be issued through the General of the Array, was uneonatitutional and in contravention of E'raory'a commieBion. with intent to induce Emory to obey such orders as the Presi4fiat IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 251 might give him directly and not throngh the General of the Army, with intent to enable the President to prevent ttie execution of the Tenure of OlTice act, aud with intent to prevent Stanton irom holding hie office. In Article X. that, with iutent to bring in disgrace and cofitempt the Congreee of the United States and the epve- ral brarichofi thereof, and to excite the odium of the people against Congress and the laws by it enacted, be made three public addreeaee, one atthe Executive Manf^ion ou the 18th of August, 1866, one at Cleveland on the 3d of September, 1866, and one at St. Louie on the gth of Septpmber, 1866, which speeches are alleged to be peculiarly indecent and nnbecoming in the Chief MagiPtrate of the United States, end by meaus thereof the President brought his office iuto OQutempt, ridicule and disgraci', and thereby committed, and was g'lilty of a high misdcmeanbr in office. In Article XI. tbat, by the same speech, made ou the ISth of August, at the Execntive Miansion, he did, in vio lation of the Conetitution, attempt to prevent the execu tion of the Tenure of Office act, by unlawfully contriving ineane to prevent Stanton from resuming the office of Sec retary tor the Department of War, after the refusal of the Seuate to concur in his suspension, and by unlawfully con triving and attempting to contrive raeana to prevent the execution of the Act making \appro priations /qt the .support of the Arm/i/xVai'aedM}\Tch2iXSG7, and to pre vent the exectiiion of the Aet to -provi def or the more ef ficient gmerrmhent of the RebU States, passed March 2, 1867. It w ill be Been that all of theae aTticTe', except the tenth. Charge violations either of the Constitu tiou of the United Statee, of tho Tenure of Office act, of the Couepirac.v act Of 1861, of the Military Appropriation act of 1867, or of the Reconstruction act oi March 3, 1867. The tenth article, which is founded on the three epeech^ea of tlie President. doee notoharKe a violation either of the ConRtitutinn 6f the United States or of auy act nf Cqugresp. Five of these articles charge a violation of the Constitution, to wit:— Articles I. II, III. IV and VIII. Seven of the articles charge vii lations of the Tenure of Office act, to wit:~Ar- tibles L IL V. VI. VH, VIU, IX and XI. Two.,of the ar ticles charge a violation of the Couspiracy acf of 1861, to wit:— Articles IV "and' VI. Two of thfim charge violations 'of.'the ApTiPopriation actof March 2, 1867. to wit :— Articles IX and XI. One only chnrgeH a violatiou nf the Uecon- Btouctiou act of March 2, 1867, aud thatis Article XT. We see, .then, that four statutee of the United States aire alleged to have beeh violated. Three of thoae provide forpeualtiobfor their violation, that is to say, the Tenure of Office act, the Conspiracy act of 1861, and the Military Appropriation act of March 2, 1867. The' violation of the Tenure of Othce actis declared by the act itself to be a *^igli miademeanor." The violation ofthe Cnnepiracy act ifi declared to be "Ahigh crime." The virtlatiou of the second section of the Military Appropriatiou ajct is de ^red td be simply "ft miedemeanor iu offiee." ' It will be observed that the first eight articles all telatq to the War Depnrtment, and to that alone. Article one sets ont an attempted reraoval of the head of that depart ment. Three others relitte to the dd interim appointment of Thomae to be acting Secretaryof that Department. The four others rebate to conspiracies to prevent Stanton from holding hia office as Sccrhtary torthe Department of War, or to Beizo the public property in that deoart- ment. or to control the disbureements of moneys apprp- pi-iated for the servicea of that department. , Now, firFt of all, it must not eecape notice that theee ar ticles are founded upon the "express averment that from the moraent of his reinstatement onthe non-Concurrence of theSenate, Mr. Stanton became the lawful Secretary for that departmeut; that, upon such order of the Senate he at once entered into posscsjeioh of the War, Department and into the lawful exercise of ite duties as Secretary, and thatuptothe dateofthe articles of impeachment- that lawful right and actual possee.-ion had remained undi:^- turbed; that allthe acts Charged m theee eipnt articles were comraitted duriug that tirtie; that, notwithatanding these acts, Stanton remaine -lawfully and actually in pos- aeflsionj-and tbat the office hae been at no time vacant. . ¦ We Bee, theu. that, accofding to the case made in these eight iftrticlea. the Preeident did not succeed in getting Mr. Stanton ouf of office, or of putting General Thomas in, eithei- in law or iu fact. Wo see,, according to theee arti clea, that the President did hot enceeed, either hv force or Otherwise, iu preventing Mr. Btanton from holding hi^ office, orin getting poseespiouof^thepublicpropertj- inthat department, or in controlling thediebursemeuts of public money appropriated for the use ofthat department, ^¦he^e hae been, according to tbe very case made iu these arti- dcs, no public mischief The la^'ful officer has not been flisturbed; the lawful custody of the public property and publicmoupy of the department haa not been changed. No injury has been doue either to tbe public service or the public ofiicer. There has beeh uo removal of Mr. Stanton -only an aborative atterapt at removal. There has been no acting Sedretary put iu an offlce vacant by death, resig. nation, or dieability-put there dunng t^o tme of such actual vacancy or temporary abeencp All the time the Becretary himeelf has been there.m the actual perform- anceofhis duties. T^o clee touching the removal of Mr, Stanton and the appnin*? mentof General Thpmaa. As to the four conepiraev articles* there oan be no question that the actual accouipli-'bmeut of the thing inteuded is not made ueccBHarv to constitute the offense ; for the statute against conspiracies expreysjy pro vides for the punishment of the unlawful intent, tho un lawful conepivacv itself, without referenc ' to any further act done in pursuance df it, or to tbe/ partial or complete accompliehment of the nniawful design. But, contrari wise, the other two acta do not punieh the intent alone, but only the commiseion of thethihg intended ; and the ofTen^'e provided for in theee two acte, while it requires the nnlaivful intent to" be a part of the cj-ime. requires aomething elfie to supplement it, and that is the actual commi^eion of the thiug intended, . j ¦ And hpre. Senators, before I proceed to consider these articlee in detail. Beems,tome,thc proper time to bring your attention to another couyideration, which i deem of very great moment. Whatis 'he subject-matter which consti tutes thepe high crimes andmi-'tlemeanors? Undei* what legislation does it happen, that the Pre-ident of the United States IK brought under all this penal liability? What are these high crimed and miademeanorR? Ha'^ be committed treason or bribery? Has he been guiltv of peculation or opprbdsion in office? Has he appropriated the pifblic funds or the public property unlawfully to liis own use? Has be committed any rnme of vinlenrc a'lainet any person, pub lic officer, or private individual? Irf he charged with any act 1^ hich hmouuts to tbe ervm/m falsi or waa done causa lucrif Nothing of the sort. These alleged high crimes and miedemeanore .ire all founded npon mere forras of e»? ecutive adminiftration; for the violation, they eay, of the rules laid down by the Legislative Department to regulate thecohductof the E.-cecutive Department inthe manner of the administration of Executive f iinctions belonging to that department. The regulations so made, purport to change what there*- toforc had been the established rule and order of admini^ tration. Before the passage of the eeco i d section of the Mili. tary Appropriation act,, the President of the United States, as C3ommander-in-chief of the aruiv, and head of the Ex ecutive Der>aitment, issued his ordera for militarv operas tiona, cither directly to the officer who la charged with tne execution of the Older; or through any intermediate channel that he deemed necessary or eonvenient. No subordinate bad a right tosuperviee bisorder before it waa sent t9 ite deetjnation. He waa not rorapolled to cnnsult hie Secretary of War wbo was merelv hie agent, nor the. general next to, himself in, rank, aa to thtt important thing, the. subj ect ra;i tter of hia order, or that merelv formal Ihine, the manner of ita traunmiceiou. Bnt. by thie eecond aection, the mere matter . of fnrm is attempted to be changed, -The. great povver of the President, aa Comman der-in-Chief, tn iFisue ordera to all his military subordi- natea is respected., The act tacitlv admits that, over these great powers; Congress hae no authority. The aubatance ia not touched, but only the form, is provided for; and it la a departure from this raere form that ie to mabe thfi President guilty ofa high crime and 'uiedemeanor. Then, again, as to the Tenure of Office act, that aleo pur ports to introduce a new rule in the adininistration of the Executive powere. It does uot purport to take away th© President's power of appointment or power of removal abt solutely ; but it purports to fix the mode in which he shall execute that power, not aa theretofore bv hia own inde-, pendent actiou, but thereafter, ouly bythe concurrence of the Seriate. It is a regulation by the legislature of tha mannet* ih which an executive power is to be formed. So. tb, as to ad intermappoiatraenta, it does not purport 'totake away that power from the Preaident; it ouly at-, tempts to regulate the execution of the power in a apecial mstance. Mr. Burke, on the Impeaehr^ient of Warren Hastings, speaking ofthe ci'iraee for whichhe stood irapeaohed,ueeB this significant language :— ^Thov were crimes, not against ftorms, but against thoae eternal laws of justice which are our rule and onr birth-riebt. His offenses are not in /otv mal, tec/imcananguage, nut iu reality, in substance and effect, high crimes and high miFdemeauors." Now, Senators, if the Legislative Department had a coi> stitutional right thus to regulate theperf ormance of execiw! tive dutiee,.and to change the mode and form of exerci*^ ing au executive powcr which had been followed from tha besinuihg of the goverument down to the preseut day, is a refliealof^ the executive to followa new rule, and. not', withstanding that, to adhere to the ancient ways, that sort of high crime aud misdemeanor which the Couatjtii^, tion contemplates, is it just ground for impeachment? Djes the fact that such an act i^ called hy the legislature a high crime and miademeanor necessarily raake it such a high crime and misdemeanor as k. conteraplated hy the C'tnetitution? If. for instance, the President should -send a military order to the Secretary of War, is that an offepaa; worthy of irflpeaehment? If he sho'uld remove an officer^ on the Slst of February, and norainate one ou the 22d, would that be an imSeacbable miademeanor? Now, it muat be admitted, that if the President had^ent the oama 258 IMPEACHMENT OP, ANDREW JOHNSON. of Mr. Ewing to the Senate ou the 21st, in the uaual way, in place of Mr. Stauton reinoved, and' had nbt absolutely ejected Mr, Stanton from office, but had left him to await the action ofthe Senate ut)on the nomination, certainly m mere matter of form there would have been no violation of this Tenure of Offiee act. , ' ' Now. what did be do? He made an prder for theremoval of Mr. Stanton ou the 31st, but did not eject hiui from office, and sent a nomination of Mr. Ewing to the Senate on the 22d. Is it possible that thereby he had comuiitted an act that amounted to a high crime and misdemeanor, aiid deaeiwed removal from office. And yet that is ju?t what the President lias done. He has more closely fol lowed the mere matter of form preacribed by the Tenlire of Office act than, according to the learned manager who opened this prosecution,' was neceapary. For. if he bad made an order of removal, and at once had sent tn the Se nate his reaaons for making auch removal, and hJid statrd to them that his purpo-e waa to make this removal in order to teat tbe constitutiou ality of tue Tenure of Office act, then, saye the houorable manager, "Had the Senate re ceived puch a meesase, the Eeprescn tatives df tlie people might never havii deemed it neceeeary to impeach the President for such an act, tC insure the safety of the fcortn- ti'y, even if fhey had denied the accuracy of his legal positions." How. then, can 'it bo deemed necessary to impeach the Prepidentfor making an order .of removal' ou one day, advising the Senate of it the same day, and eend- ing tbe nomination of a sucecpsor the next day? Was ever ¦a matter more purely formal than thia? And yet this ia the onlv act. Is this, in the words OfMr. Burke, not iu merely tefiAmcananguage, "but in reality, in ' substance, and effort" a tiigh crime and mifideraeanor 'witbiii the meaning of tbe Constitution? The first ciauae of the firat sectibn declarea that every person then or thereafter holding anv civi! office under an appointment "-ith the advice ' aud c'onsent of the Senate and due f[nalificatian, shall hold bis office undl a succei?- Bor shall have beeu iu like mauner appointed and quali fied. • If tbe act contained no other provisions qualifying tbia general clauee, then it would be clear—' 1, Thatit would apply to all pivil officers who held by appointment made by the President with the advice of tho Senate, including judicial officers aa*" well , as executive officers. It givea all of them the same ri'yht to hold, and subjects all of thera totbe same liability to be removed. From the exeercise of the power of suapenawn by the independent act of the President made applicable to any officer Ro holding, by'the second section, judges of the United States are cxpresplv excepted, Wc find uo Bitch exception, express or implied, aa to tbo exerciae of the powerof re-tnoval declared m the, firat section. ,Tudicial officera, as well as executive officers, are made to bold by the eame tenure. They hold duriug the pleasure of the President and the Senate, ;iud cease to hold when tho Pre sident and the Senate appoiuta eucceaaor. ' , 2. It appliea equally to offidere whose tenure of office, aa fixed pi'ior to the act, was to hold during the pleasure of the President, ae to thoae who were to hold for a fixed term of yeare, or during good behavior'. 3. It purports to take from thePreaident the power tq remove any officer, at any time, for any cauae, by tbe exerciae of hia own power alone. But it leaves hira apower.of removal with the concurrence of the Senate, In this proceas of removal, the separa'te' action of the Preaident and tbe Senate is required. The initiatory act must come from the Piesident, and frora him a,lone. It is upon hia action as talcen that the Senate proceed?, and they give or withhold their consent to what he Acts done. The manner in which the President raay exerciae hie part of the process ie mei'cly forraal. It maybe simply, by the nomination of asuccet"eor to the incuiribent, or the'officer , intended tobe removed. Then, upon the'confirmation bv th'd Senate of eucli nomination, ahd -the issuance of a com mission to hira, the reraoV.il becouies complete. Orthe PreMdcht may exercit'e his part of the proceas by issuing anorder of removal, followed bya nomination. Neither the order for Removal er the nomination works a change iu itself Both are necessarily conditional upou the 8Ub:5e- Queut action ofthe Senate. So, too, the order of removal, the noraination, and the confirmation nf thfe Senate, are ¦ not final. A further act rebiaius to he done before. the ap- I>ointmont ofthe siicceseot" is complete, aud that is an exe cutive act exclusively the signing of the commission by the President. Up to this poiiit, the l^resident has^aiocMS penitentice : for, aUhough the Senate have ad vised him to appoint hia ; norainee, the Preaident- is not bound by their advice, but mav defeat all the prior action by allowing the incumbent to reraain in olifice. ThUa far we have considered' the first ciauae of the first section of the act, withoiit reference to the context^' Standing alone, it seeras to "have a universal application to all oivil offijera,- jjind to eecure al,l of them who hold by the concurveut action of tho Pfosident and theSenate, agaiust removal, Otherwise than by tlie eame concurrent action, and to raake ull ofthem liablef to reraoval by that concurrent actiou, . Are thtfre exceptione to tbe universality of the tenure of office 80 declared? We say there are— 1. Eyceptlons by 'necessary implication. Judicial offi cers nf tne United Statea cnme within this exception; for' their tenure of office is fixed by tlio Conatitutiou itself. Thoy cniraot be removod either by the President alone, or by the Preaident and Senate conjointly. They alone hold m^'tuc or during good behAvibr. aubjeet to only one mode (Jfrreinoval, and that ie by impeachment. ,2. Ivvqeptinna made expresnly iw tho provisiona of the atot ; which make it manifest that iP was not intended for all civil office^sof the United States.' Fii'st mf all, thispw- . pose ia indicated by the title of the act. It ie entitled- io: act regulating thQ Tenure, of certain Civil officea"— not of all civil officea. Next wie; find, that immediatelv succeeds ing the first, clailee, which, as haa been-shown, lein-tcrras of imiveraal application, comprehending "every perapn holding any civil office," the purpoae of reatraining or lipiiS ing its generality, is expressed in' theao worda, "except-aa herein otherwise provided for." This puts us at once upon inquiry. It advisee 'UB( that all peveona and all officera afe not intended to be embracedi in tbe coraprehensive terras ueed in the firstclauae—thatisonie peraons aud some officers are intended to be excepted and to be'"otherwi!'e provided for"— that fjofue who do hold by the concurrent action of the PfQaide.nt and theSenate, are not to be secured againat removal by auy other procsaa tban the aame concurifent ' action. I ' ; - ¦ , ' ¦ What claas.of officers [embraced by tbe general provisions of theiirst clause are ^lade to come within the clause-of exception? The proviso which imraediately foUowf(^an- Bwcrs the question.. Jt ia iu these words-— "y^rtwirfedt That thp Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War,- of tho Navy, aud.bf the.Intci'ior, thePostmaffter-General, and the At toi^ney-'G-eneral, -shall hold their; offices respecbively for aud duriugthe term of the' President by whom th^ mav have becn,appointed;iaud for one month thereafteB, aubject to removal byand withthe adviee- and consent of the Senate." . ¦, . ' ¦ ¦' oi*' We see that these eeven heada of departmenta .are the , oulv ' ciyil . officera , of the Uuited Statea which are especially designated. We see a clear purpose to-make some apecial proyisinn aa to tbem. Being civil offisera holding by the concurrent -appointnuent of the j?reai-. dent aud the Senate, they would have been embraced^ by the iirat general clauee of the aection, if thei-e had betin no exception and no proviso. The argument on the othi^r side ie, that notwithstanding the declared pu* pose to make exceptione, theae officera are not made excep: tiens ; that notwithstanding there ia a proviso aa to theni. ' in which express provieion is apecially lor their tenure of affice, we muat atill look to the general clauee to find their tenure bf oifice. "It iaasettled rule of enustructioa that every word of a atati;ijt6" ia to be taken into account,/ancl that a??roiizso must- have, effect as much as anyfttUer clause of the statute.., , - Upoi;i looking into, thie provi^o.we find ita purpoee tobe the fixing a tenure of office for these seven officers. 'And hnwis that tenure fixed? We-ifind.itthue declared, some of thera are given a tenure of , office, others are not,., But as to the favoi-cd class,; as to that class intended to be raade safe and most secure, ^ even their tenure ia not ao ample and permanent as the tenure given to all ciWl offt- cera who. prior to the act, held by the aame tenure as them selvea. By .tjie geperal clauee, all civil officera are finii- braced and protected from executive removal, including ae well those whp hoJi?. by no, other tenure than "theplea- eure ofiitbe President." Xhia tenure, "during the plea sure ,\oi thePresidejit," was the tenure by which all these Cabinet officers held prior to the passage of thia law. Now, for the first %\me, thie proviso fixed another and safer teuure, for certain Cabinet officers, uot for. all. It gavcto some-flftheipi the.ji'igbVto hold duriugthe termof • one Pre,sident aid, fo^. .one month of .tho term of the auc ceeding President, hut it did not give that right to all of them. ' It was 5i ven only to a favored claee, and the ^new terii'ire so given to .the favored class wae not -eo' favorable as that giyeu to other civil officera who, had theretofore held by precisely the same uncertain 'tenure, thatis, td say, "the pleasure of the President," .for these otheifCivU officers were no^limited to the term of one Preaideniand one month afterwarda, but thei rten ure was iust as aecuSe from "the pleaaure ofthe President" after tne expii-ivtioji of one Presidential terra and after .the expiration bi.tliB firstni^onthof therSUQceeding Presidential term, as it Wafl before. . ' ' ' We see, tben, that in fixing a new tenure of of office fol Cabinet officers, the tenure given to, oue class of them, and that the most favored, waa pAf; as favorable as that given to other civil, pffieers theretdrore holding by the aarae tenir ure \vith themselves. This favored claea "were not to hold one" moment after the expiration ofthe month of the b^ cpnd Presidentip.1 terra. At that punctual tiuie, the righl of the President to select hia Cabinet would, even aa ta them, return to him. If they were to remain after that, u; would be thait jt would bo hia .pleasuv^ to keep them and io give them a new tenure by his choice, in the regular modeof appointment. ,i ¦ ' Biit, as wo have seen,, , the jJKOviso, makes a distmotion between Cabinet officerjis, and dividea them into> two claasce, those holding t^y appointment of the PreeidenfcfflS the time being, and tbpae not appoihted bylura, but by hia prodeccsBOi-, and holding Qnly by hia sufferance or plcaj- aiire. If ever an intent vp:aB manifest iu a statute, it is clear in tlySfinstance. There is a divif*ion iuto two claeaea^ a tenure of' office given to one claaa, and withheld froTtt the pther. Befpre the paasage ,of thia act, all Cabinet offir cers holding under any Preaident, whether appointed by him or hia predecesaor, held by the sarae tenure, "the pji!» sure of the Preaidont." Thia proviso makes a dietinction between' them ,never made before. It givea one claas an{^i ; abd tnore feecuro tenure, and it leavea the other claea .witn- out aueh new tenure. One clasd waa intended to be pK>* tpcted, the other uot. I : Nbwooraesthe question, Upon, :vhaf groimd .-wae thifl distinclJion made? Why was it that a better title, .a ptronger tenure ivaa given to one elasa thau to the other? The rtriaWer 19 eiveu by tho proviso, itaeU. The officere at the Cahfnet rtf a P 'ejideut, wbo were nominated byhi'in lyho wero appointed by him Wjith the concurrence of tn IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 259 Senate, are thoae to whom tbia now and better tenure in given. They are officera of his own selection ; thev are Bis choaen agenta. He haa once recomraended them to - the Senate aa fit persons for the public trijst, and. they have obtained their oflice through his selection and choice. The theory here ie, that having had ' oue free . opportunity of choice, having once exerciaed his' right of selection, ha. ahall be bound bv it. He shall not dismiss Ilia own selected agent upon his own pleaaure or ¦ caprice. He is, in legal lauguage, "estopped" by the selec tion he haa made, andis mado incapable bv hia own act of diaeolving the official relatiou which he has imposed ou himself. Having aelectedhia Cabinet officer, he muat take hira aa a raau takea hia chosen wife, for better or worae, , But atf to euch Cabinet officers aa are, not of a President'a selection— as to thoae who have been selected by a former Preaident^ae to those whose title was given by another— as to thoae he never appointed, and, perhape, never would have apf oiuted— as to thoBe-;^vho came to him by aucces- sion aad uot by bia own adt— as to thoae who hnld mei'ely toy his acquiceceuce as anffevanoe—theij are entitled to no fovor. and receive none. They stand" as > etep'-childron in llis political family, ajid arenotpbiced ou the same level Willi the rightful Jieiya entitled to the inheritance. ¦ yhe crinatruction claimed by the m'auagere leads to thia incvitaljlo absurdity,: thatthe clasp entitled to favor are cut otf at the end Of the mouth, wbile.thoee, haviug a leaa meri torious title, remain indefinitely. What was intended for a.benefit. becomes a ,mi8chi,ef,^and.i the favored class are worse off than if no favor had been shown tbem. Their condition vvasautouded to be made better than that of their fellows, and has beeu madewoise, Froui those entitled tu protection, it is taken away to be given to those not eutitled. ¦ - _Nqw, when Preeident Johnson was invested with hia pfice, he found Mr. Sitanton holding the office of Secretary of War. He had been appointed by Mr. Liucoln during msfiirst term, aud,w-aa holdmg in. the eecond mouth ot Mi'. Lincoln's aecond tef'm uuder the old - appointment. Mr. Stanton waa neither appointed by Mr. Lincoln or Mr. J'ohnson for that second term : so that we are relieved from aU question whether the fractional term, counting from the acceesion nfjMr. Johnsou, is tobe ciillcdtbe nnjxpired term of Mr. Liucoln, or the' proper termof Mr.iJohn- Bon, and wheUier. if be had been appointed or re-ap pointed by' A9B Lincoln ¦ during hia aecoud term, he might not nav™claimed that he ^fae^entitled, as against Mr, Johnson, to hqld on to its end. Mr. . Stauton never had any tenure of ottice under the Teuure of Office act for the current PreeidcntiaU term, never having been apppointed for that term by either Mr. Liucoln or Mr. Jo'hneon. He, therefore, doea not bome withiu. .the catc- gorv of thoae merabers of Mr. Johnson's Cabinet wbo have been appointedby Mr. Johneora , v At the date of tnepassage of the Tenure of Office act, the Cabinet of Mr. Johnson was composed as follows;— The Secretariea of State, of the Ti'easuvy, pf War„and of the Navy, held by appointraent of Mr. Liucoln made in bis first term ; the Secretary of the Interior, the Postmaster- Gene- rnl, and the Attorney-General, held by the appointment of Mr. Johnson made du};ing his current terra. There wae, then, as to the entii'e seven, a difference as to the manner aud time of their appointment. Fo^r had beeu appoiuted toy Mr.'Lincoln, and tlie other three by Mr, Johnson. All of thera held by the eame tenure, "the pleasure of the President." All of them, without reference to constitu-. tional proviaions, \Vcre, by existing laws, removable by the independent actiou ofthe Preaident. The acte of Congreah creating the offices of Secretaries of Stp,te,,of War, aiid of 'the Navy, expreetjly recognize the Executive authority to remove them at pleasure. The acta of Congresa creating tbe four other heads of departments place tbem' on the same footing aa to tenure, of otVice. All theae acts re mained, fn this particular, in full force. Thia Tenureof lOffice act introduces a distinction mado applicable to Ca binet officers alone, never made before. For the firat time, it gives to tlipae appointed by the Preaident for the 'iSuie being, a new teuure. It secures thera from remeval ¦at hia pleasure aloue. It repeals, as to them, the existing laws, and declarea that tl^ey ehall thereafter he entitled to hold during the remainder of tho term of the Prepident by whom they were appointed, andfor one montli or the suc ceeding Presidential term, exempts from removal by the aole act of the President, aud ouly aubject to re moval by the concurrent act of the President aud 'Senate. But it givee thora no right to hold agaiuat the pleasure of the aucceeding . Preaident, oue mo- ¦ment after the expiration of that punctual time 'of one month. When that time haa arrived, their right to hold ccasea, and their offices become vacant.., The fcblicy hore declared ia unmistakable, that notwithstand ing anything to the contrary in the act, every Preeident Bhall have the privilege of bia own choice, of his own eelec tion of the membera ofhis Cabinet. The rightof Bcloction 'for himself i.-', however, qualified. He raay not, ae there- ttoforc, enjoy f lii;:^ right throughout hia term. For the first month he raust take the Cabiuet of his predccosaor, how ever opposed to him ifi opinion or obnoxious to him neraon- ally.t- Then, too, while the right is given to him, it cau pe ¦exercised but once. Itisapoiver that does .;ipt suryiyei ,Dut expiree with a eingle execution. I Now, aa to the three membera of Mr. Johnson'a Cabinet, appointed by his own exercise of thia indypendcut power, /ho having, aa to tbem, once exerci:ied the pOw'er, it ia, aa to ¦them, exhausted, Tho conscguonce ia, that these thrfie officere no- longer remain subiect to his pleasure, alqn^. ¦They are entitledi* to hold iu dbfi&-nee of his, wishea, throughout the remainder of his' tenn, because th^v; afe hia awn selected officers; but they* are not entitled Jo hold during the wholeterm of his succcaaor, but only for a mo dicum of that term, just because they were ndt eelected by that succeasor. So much for theee three. Now, aa to the othor four, aa to whom Mr, Johnsonihtw^* not exorcised hie right of choice even by one appointment. May they hold during the residue of hia term in dofianco of ilia wishes? Do they come within that clear policy df givmg to every Preaideut ono opportunity at leaat to ex ercise hie independeut right of choice? Surely not. Thei^ if, as to them, ho has the right, how can he exercise it, i^ as in the caae of Mr. Stanton, the Cabinet oll'icei-- holds on after he haa been requested to reaign? What mode ieleft , to the President to avail him-clf of hia owu independent right, when auch an otficer refuses to reaign?. None other thau the proceas of reraoval ; for ho cannot put the man of hie choice in until be baa put the other out. So thattha iudepcndontrighl. of choice cannot, under such conditinns, be exerciaed at all without the corrcaponding right of ro- moyal ; and the one' necessarily implies the other. We h-ave aeeu thatthe tenure of offioe fixed by the proviso for Cabinet officers applies only to those inembers of Mc Johnson's Cabiuet. appoiuted by hiin?elt'. It, thei'efore,doe8 not apply to Mr. Stauton. If there is auy other ciauae of the act which applies to Mr. Stanton, it muat be tho first general clause, and if that does- not apply to him. then hia caae does not cnrae avithin the purview of tho act at all. but must be ruled by tbe prc-exiatiug laws, which raade him subject at all tiuiea to the pleasure of the President aud to the exercise of hi:^ independent power of removal. And this is preciaely what ia claimed hv the managers. They main tain, that, .although the proviso does -not give Mr. Stanton a new tenure, yet the firet general clause doea, and that ho is put by that clause onthe same footing of all other civil officera who, at the date of the act, held by the concurrent appointment of the President and Senate by no other tenure than "during the pleaaure of thePreaident." Butall the oflicers iutended to be embraced by that first clause, who held by that tenure befu-e. are declared to bold by a new teuure. Not oue of them can bc reraoved bythe President alone. Whether appointed by the Preaident for the time being or by liis predeceaaor, they must remain in defiance of the President until reraoved by the concurrent action ofthe Preaident andthe Senate. In effect, ao far as ,the pow^er of the Preaident ie concerned, they may hold for life. If Mr. Stiinton comes within tho protection of that claiMc, if Jiis teuure of ojfice is fixed by tnat clause, it fol lowa , iuevitalilv that Mi". Johuaon cannot remove him. It follows as inevitably that no succeeding Preeident canrc- mov& him. He mav defy Mr. Johnson's succeesor as he hae eaid to Mr. Johnsou, "I am compelled to denv your right under the Conetitution and laws of the United StatCBi ivithout the advice aud conseut of theSenate." If the succeasor of Mr. Johnaon should poiut him to the proviso, and at the end of the month require hira to leave, his an.- awer. according to the managers, would ruu thus :— ''That proviso did not fix my tenure of bffice. It did not apply to me, but only to those appointed by Mr. Johnson. They muat go out with tlie month; I do no not. My tenure is fixed by the first clauee, and you cannot get clear of me without the advice and consent ofthe Senate." Without concluding, Mr. Stanbery gave way to a motiou to adjourn. He had read oniy nineteen pages out of fifty- PROCEEDINGS OF SaTURDAY, MAY 2. The Senate raet at noon, and the court waa imm©-^ diately opened in due form. Mr. STANBERY resnmed tbe floor, introducing the continuance ofhis reraarks by thanking the Senate for tbe courtesy ahown him in an early adjournrbeiit last evening, and saying he had been greatly bene fited by the Consequent rest, and then expressing: iu idyance his confidence in a speedy acquittal, pro ceeded with bia argument. At 1'15 P. M., Mr. Staubery showing evident signs of fatigae, Seuator Johnson approached hira and ;ipparenlly made a suggestion, in reply to which Mr. Stanbery said it would relieve him ¦ very much if his young friend wonld be permitted to read his remarks. Senator ANTHONY said, in order to relieve the counsel,, hewould move that the Senate adjourn. until ^Monday. ; ,^ Several Senators— No. no! In reply to an inquiry from^ the Chief Justice, Mr. STANBEHY said he did not ask it, and Mr. W- F. Pedrick, formerly^Qf, the .Attorney-Generars Ofiice. 260 IlJklPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON, and who has assisted the counsel during the trial, - then proceeded to read from the printed speech in a '(Sear voice. JWr. Stanbery^s Address. Ittiaonlv in th0 -first article that any charge ia made in reference to Mr, Stanton'a removal. That article nowhere alleges that Mr. Stanton has heen removed either in law or in fact. It doea allege that ou the 2lat of February Stanton waa "lawfully entitled to hold aaid office of Secretary for the Depa'tment of War," and that on that day the Preei dent "did unlawfully and in violation of the Conetitution and lawa of the United Statea, iseiw an order in writing for the reraoval of Edwin M. Stantou from the office of Secre tary for the Department of War." It is the issuance of tbis order for a reinoyal that ia made the gravamen of the ohar^. It ia not followed bv any all 'gation fhat it had the effect to work a removal either iu law or iu fact. On the contrary, in the very uext article which ia founded on the order to Thomas, which purports to be made after the order for the removal of Stanton, it is alleged that Stanton still held the office lawfully, and that notwithstanding the order of removal to, Stanton, and the order to Thomaa to, aet aa Secretar.v. Stanton atill held the office, and no va cancy w.as created or existed. This ie the tenor of every article, thnt Stantou never hae been removed, in law or in faet; that there never has been an ouster, either in law or in fact, and-that there has been at no time a vacancy, The proof aho'vB that Stanton remaina in poaseseion, and that bis official acta continue to be recognized. Now if the order per se operated a reraoval in law, It raust follow that the order was valid and in conformity with the Consti tution andlaws of the UnitedStates, for no order raade con trary thereto could take effect in law. If there ivas a re moval in law the executive- order which accomplished it was a valid, not an invalid act. Butif the order did not operate a removal per se, and if a removal in fact, though not in law, might be held sufficient to constitute an of fenee, and if it were alleged arid Were proved that under the illegal order an ouster or reraoval waa'effijcted by force or threads, the ana\ver to be given in this caso is conclu sive. No ouster— in fact, no actual or physical reraoval— ia proved or so much aa charged, Mr.Stantou haa never to this day been nut out of actual po"Bsession, He rerhains in possession as fully since the order was as , before, and still holds on. Now, we look in yain. through thia 'J'enure of Offiee act for any proviaiou forbidding an atterapt to cauae a reraoval. or making it penal to iaaue au order for such purpose. The eixth eection is the only one on the aubject of removal, and that provides "that every removal * * * made * * * contrary to the provisions of this act * » ¦» shall be deemed, and ia hereby deelared, to be a high mis demeanor, and i^ mado punishable by fiue not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or impriaonraent not exceeding five yeara, or ho-h, at the discretion of the court. No latitude of construction ean torture au attempt to make a reraoval into an actual removal, or can turn an abortive efibrt to do a given thing into an accomplished fact. Such a latitude ot conetruetlon could not be allowed when the rule ot con struction ia leaat restricted,' and least of all in a penal eta tute where the rule of conetruction ie tbe most-restpiotive. It seema a waste of words to argue this point further. There i^ a totul failure ofthe case upon the first article ou this point, if we had none other. And yet this article is the headand front of the entire caae. Strike it out and all that remains ia "leatlier and prunejia." But, Senators, if you should he of opinion that the Tenure of Office act pro tected Mr. Stanton, and that the attempt to remove him was C'luivnlent to a removal, we next maiutain— Firet, tbat the Preaident had a right to construe the lawfor himaelf, and if, in the exerciee ofthat ridit, he comraitted an error of coTistrnctiou. and acted under that error, he ie not to be held responeible. Second, if he had so, con strued the law as to be of opinion that Mr. Stanton was fntenaid to be protected by it againat hia powerof re moval, and was also of opinion tliat the law in that re spect was contrary to the Constitution, he is not to bo held jrcsppn^ible, if he therein committed an error. I proceed to argue theae pointa in the order in which thev have been stated. First, then, ia the President responsible for an offi cial aet done by him under au erroneoue construction of an aet nf Congreaa? I agree tliat i:^norance or misconcep tion of the Uw does not, iu general, excuse a party from xivil or crimiual liability for an aet contrary to law. i But this well-establiehcd rule has exceptions equally well establiahed, and the caae here falls within one of the ex- ceptiouEi, and. not within the rule wherea law is passed which concerns the President and touches his official duties, it i.5 not ouly his right, but hia duty to deter mine for himeelf what is tbe true construction of the law. and to act, or refuse to act, acqiording to thatdeter- jniuatiou. whatever it may be. He ia an execptive officer, not a mere ministerial officer. JHe is invested with a diacretion, withthe right to form a judgment and to act under hia judgment so formed, however erroneoua. No BUch diatinction is allowed to a miniaterial officer, Hia busineaa is uot to couatrue the law, but merelv to perforra It, and he iicta at hie peril if he doea not do that which is commanded by reaaon of an erroneous construction, how ever honestlv ontortained. Mr. StKnbery, thon clairaed that the Constitution clearly gives the Preeident the power to construe laws, and argued at length that Mr. Johnson had no nalit to gn to the Supreme Court to aaceriain whe- ther the law waa constitutional, nor was he obliged tn tako advice from hie Cabincf aa to what course he sliould pur aue. r recce diug, he said:— Besides thia late authoritative expoeition, aa to the diacretlonary power ofthe Preeident, there is abundance of other authority entitled to the grayeat conaideration, which might be adduced to the aame effect, and which I propose to Introduce upon the next point, which I now proceed to eoneider, andthat point IE that if the I'reaident had eo construed this Tennre of Office aet as to be satisfied that Mr. Stantbn came within, its provieiona, but was nlao of opinion that the law in that reapect wae contrary to the Oonatitntion, he is not to be held responsible if therein he coraraitted an error. The caae. iu that aapect, stood thus:-;Here waa an act of Con- f rese, which, ifa the construction given to it by the Presi- enf, was for the removal of Mr. Stanton from the "War De* partment. The Preaident, in the exerciae of hia executive functions and of his duty to eee that the laws were faith* fully executed, eame to the conclusion tbat in the execu tion of so much of this executive duty as had relation to thp^dministratiOn of the War Department it waa expe- .^dtent to plaeeit in the hands of another pereon. His re lations with Mr. Stanton were aiieh that he felt unwilling any longer tn be reaponsibie for hia acta in the adminietra- tiop of that departmentj or to trust him as one of hia con fidential advisera. The queation at once arose whether this right of leraoVal, denied to hira by thia law, waa given to him by the (JonHtitution; or, to atate 'it iu other words, whether this law was in this respect in pursuance of the Conatitution. Now, it appeara that hie' opiniBn upon this aueation has been made up deliberately. When this eame law was on ita paaeage and had beeu presented' to Mra for his approval, hia opinion was formed that it was in violation of the Conftitution. He refuaed to ap. prove it. and returned it to Congresa with a mesaage in, which this opinion waa distinctly announced. It paeaed, notwithstanding, by a constitutional majority m both Houses, No one doubta that tben, atleast, he had apar-', feet right to exercise a discretion, and uo one has ever yw asserted that an error in an oninion so formed involved him in any liability. The exerciae of that veto powe?- exhaueted all hid raeans of re.'iistauce to what ho deemed; au unconstitutional act in bis Ipgislative capacity, and so far as the law provided a rule of action for others than himself no other meana of resistance were left to him. Bntthislaw waa directly aimed at him aud the exercise of" the executive power vested in him by the Constitution. When, therefore, he carae a second time to eoneider it, it waa iu the diacharge of an executive duty. Had he then no,di'='cretion of auy sort? Was he boiij^ to act ina raerely ministerial capacity? Having ofm finally exer cised a di^cretinn in his legislative capacity to prevent the pasaage of the law, was he thereby deprived or his discre tion in his executive capacity, wheq he waa called upon to ¦ act under it? It has been said that a law passed over a President's veto by a majority of two-thirda, haa a greater eauetion than a law paseed in the ordinary way by a raere majority. I know that there are those w^fio, whilst they adrait that as to a law paesed iu the ordinary raodo by the concurrent acts of the two Housea and the President, it may be questioned on the score of unconstitutionality, yet maintain that a law not passed by such a concurrence but by the separate action of the two Honsea without thp concurrence of the Executive or against his will, is something superior to ordmary legislation, and takee the character of a funda mental or organic enactraent. But this ia a modern heresy uupUBtamed by the elightest reason or authority. It is at leaet but a legislative act. It stands upon an equal footing with other legislative acta. It canuot be put upon higher ground or lower ground. No distinction ia allowable he* tween the one and the other. But if it were, it certainly would seem more reaaonable that such a law passed by one co-ordinate departraent wonld stand on lower ground than a law passed with full concniTenco of both diipartmenta. The question then reeura, is the President invested with a discretion m his executive capacitv? In the exercise of that discretion may he compare the law with the Consti tution, and if in his opinion the law vesta hiin with a power not granted by the Constitution, or deprivee him. at a power which fhe Gonatitution does not grant, raay he re- fueo to execute the power so given or proceed to exerciae thejppwer so taken away? We have ali eadv cited a late decision of the Supreme Court directly in point, that pre- sented the dinect gueation. whether aa to the rcconatrac- tion acta paeeed like.this Tenure of Civil Ofiice act, bya vote of two-thirds m each House, the President had, not withstanding, in reference to those lawa an executive dis cretion)* Ihp deci^riion maintaina that he had. I proceed to ahow that this is no raodern doctrine. The authorities which I Bhall cite go beyond the necessities of this case. Some pt them go to the length of asserting that this execii- tive diperetion survives even after tho pasaage of the law by the legislative department, . It lias been construed by the judicial department, and in that extreme caae leaves the President at last to act for himself m opposition to the express \i ill of both the other departments. I will firat cite some opinions upon thie est- treme posilion, Mr. Stanbery then quoted frora Preeidenta Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren, from tho Federalista, and Irom a large number of loyal authorities and decisione of the Supreme Court of ihe United States to sustain his po- * Pu°* -f^ontinuing. he said:— Quotations from opiuiona 01 the, Supreme Court maintaining that the executive ' power IS in no^eenae ministerial, but strictly discretionary, might be multiphed indefinitely. And indeed, ife ia eaay to show, from Repeated decisiona of the aarae Court, that the nead.a of departments, except whero the performance of a specific act or duty ia required of thera hy law, are in no sense rainiateri il officere, but that they too are clothed wljb a diacretiop. and protected froap reaponsibiUtv-fot error in the exercise of the discretion, ^'bus :— Decatur vS Paulding. 14 Petera; Kendall va. Stokes, 3 Howard; Bis shear va. Mason, 6 Howard ; in which latter caee the Coup ' say;— "Theduty required of the Secretary by the resolu IMPEACHMENT OP ANDREW JOHNSON. 261 tion, waa to be performed by him aa the head of one of the executive departments of the Govemraent, iu the ordinary diacharge of bis official duties ; that in general, such duties, whether impoaed by act of Congrees or by resolution, are not merely ministerial duties; thatthe head of an execu tive department of tbe Government, in tbe administration of tho various and important concerns of hia oifiee, is cou- tinuallv required to exercise judgment aud diecretian; and that tho Court could not, by maudamua, act directly upon the officer, to guido and control his judgment and discretion in niattera committed to his care in, the ordinary discharge of hia official duties." I willnow aafe your attention, Senatora, to the remain ing articles, and firat, tho four conspiracv article a. These allege that the Preaident unlawfully conspired with Lo renzo Thomas, and others to the House of Representatives unknown, on the 2lEt of February, 1868, firet. to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, frora hold ing the office of Secretary for the Department of War, ^ contrarv to the Conspiracy aet of July 31, 1861. and in vio lation of the Constitution of the Uuited States ; second^ to firevent and hinder the execution of the "act regulating he tenure of certain civil offices," and in purauanee pt this conapiracy did uulau fully ?ittempt to preveut Edwin M. Stantou from holding the aaid office-, third, by force to seize, take aud possees the property of the United States Ju the Department of War in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary thereof, contrary to the Con apiracy aet of July 31, 1861, and of the Tenure of Qffice act ; fourth, with intent unlawfully to seize, take and posress . the pi'^ODcrty of fhe United States in tho Department of W*r in the custody of Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary thereof, with intent to violate the "aet regulating the tenure of certain civil offices."" It will be seen that these four couspiracy counts all relate to the same subject mat ter—the 'War Offiee, the Secretary of the War Office and the public property therein situated- and this is all that ia neceaeary to bc aaid about these articles, for uot a eciritilia of proof has been adduced in their support. Tho caae attempted to be made out under theee conapiraev arti cles bythe managera was, in the first place, by the pro duction cf ordera iaaued on the 21at or February.' Biit aa these of themselvea did not amount to evideuce of a conspiracy, as the.v carried the idea of no unlawful agreement, biit simply atood upon the footing of an order given by the Preaideut to a subordinate, the mana- fiera, in order to make some ehow of a caae, offered fo in- roduce the declarations of General Thomaa, made on the night of the 21at and on the 32d of February, and other daya, intending to sjiow a purpoae on his part to obtain possession ofthe departmeut and the property -of the de- partineut by intimidation and force. Objection was made at the tirae to the intrtiduction of these declarations with out layini; a foundation upon Whieh the Preeideut could be raade liable by auch declaration. Impressed with thia objection, the manager who opened the proaecution. after some conaideration, at lengln answered an inquiry of a Senator that he expected to follow up the proof of the de clarationa by proof^ connecting the President with them. ¦ Upon that assurance he waa aUowed to give the declara tions of General Thomas in evidence: But that ia the last we have heard of any aupportine proof bo promised. Not a scintilla of proof has been obtained fi'om General Thomaa or from any other quarter, imder the conapiracy charge, of any authority given or intended to be given by the President to General Thoraas to resort to force, intimi dation or thredts, in the execution of tlie order which the President had given. This is quite enough to aay with re gard to these articles. Next, as to the ninth article, uaU' ally known aa the Emory article. It had no substance in itaelf from the beginning, aud sj[nce the testimony of Mr, I Wellea remains without the slighteat foundation. Next^ as to the tenth article, relative to the speeches niade at the Executive Mansion, at Cleveland find at St. Louis, iu the months of August aud September, 1866. It ia in the name of the people of the United Statea that you, Senators, are in this article called upon to hold the President of the United States crirainally responaible, eveu to the loes of his office, for speaking, as the article has it, with a lond voice to au aseemblage of American citizens what is called flcandalous matter touching the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States. Mr. Staubery held tbat the Thirty-. ninth Congress having taken uo notice of the alleged ' scandal, this Congresa could not, and ' quoted from an Eng lish case to EUBtain bis poaition. Thetenib article, ho aaid, carried ua back- five hundred ?'earB to the days wheu meu were punished for expresaing heir religious opinions. He then continued as follows:— - 'Upon the forraation of the Couatitution of the United ' Btatea, our fathers were not unmindful of what had hap- ' pened in the past. They had brought with them the tradi- -'-nons of suffering and persecution for opinion's sake, and ' they determined to lay here for themaelves the founda- ! iions of civil liberty, eo etrong that they never could be ' changed. When our Constitution was formed aud waa. ^presented to the various States for adoption, the universat Tohjection made to it was not ao much for what it contained ?JAB for what it omitted. It was aaid we find hereuo bill of rights r we find here no guarantee of conacience, of speech, ofthe press. The answer was that the Conatitutiou itself tirali, from beginning to end, a bill of righta; that it cou- .>*Brred upon the government only certain specified aud de- legatad powere, and among theee Was not to be found any grant or any power over the conacience or over free speech or a free press. The anawerwas plauaible, butnotsatii- faetory. The conaequenee was that at the firat Congreas held under the Conatitution, according to instructions sent from' the various State Conventions, ten amendments were introduced aud adopted, and first in order anpiong tbem is this araendment :— Article 1. Congress ehall make no law respecting an eata- bliahmentof religion or prohibiting tbe free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the preas; or the • right of the people peaceably to assem bio and to petitioti the eoyernment for a redreea of grievances. There, in that article, associated with religious free^ dom, with the frcdom of the preaa, with the gruat right of popular aaaenfblage and petition -there we find safely an chored forever this inestimable right of free apeech. Mark, now, Senatora, the preecient wiadom , of the people! Within ten years after the adoptiou of the Con-i tit ution the Eovernment waa entirely in the hande of oue party. All of ita departments, execntive, legialative and judi ciary, were concentrated in what was then cnlled the Fe deral party. But a formidable party had begun to show itself, lieaded by a fprraidable leader, a party then called the Hepubliciin, eince known as the DemocraHc party. Nothiug waa left to them but free speech andaiVee press. All the patronage waa upon the other side. But they made the moat of thoPc great engines. So much, however, had the dominant party loat discretion, confident in ita Earty strength, that, irritated to folly and mad^iesa by the erce attacks raade upou its executive, ita judiciary and its Houses of Congress, in an evil hour it passed an act, July 14, 1798, entitled '*An act for the punianment of cer tain cruues against the United States." The second see tion of thia act providea :i-"That if any pereon ahall write, ¦print, utter, publish » * * anyfaleo, scandaloua and malicioua writing or writinga against the Goyernmeut of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said governraent, or either House of the aaid Congreaa, or tbe said President, or to bring them or either of thera into conterapt or disre pute, or to excite against thein or either or any of thera the hatred of tbe good people of the United States * * * such persona * * * shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollara, and by impriaon ment not exceeding two years." No act haa ever been pasaed by the Congress of tbe United Statea eo odious toj the people ae tliis, Mr. Hamilton, and other great, Fcderaliats of the day, attempted in vain to defend it before tbe people. But the . authors of the law and" tbe law itself went dow-n together before the popular indignation, and this act, which waa got ten up by a great and powerful party iu order to preaerve itself in poner, becarae the fatal meana of driving that party, out of power,' followed by tbe maledictions of the, people. History continuea to teach us now as heretofore, - that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." There is now, as there has beeu iu the past, a constant tendency to transfer power from the mauy to the few. There the dan ger lies to tlie permanence of our political inatitutiona, ' and its source is in tlie Legislative Department alone. Guard that well and we are safe. And to guard it well, you raust guard the other departraents from its encroach ments. Without the help of the people they cannot de fend theraselves. This last attempt manifested in thia tenth article to again bring into play the fearful privilege of the legislative department, is only a repetition of ii'hat haa happened froni the dawn of history. Wherever that has been the governing eleraent, it haa always been jealous of free apeech and a free press. It haa not been ao wi^ the abaolute monarch. He feela * eecure surrounded by. physical power, sustained by armies and naviea. Accord ingly, we fiud that auch a monster as Tiberius' pardoned a poor wretch who had lampooned his authority and ridi culed hia conduct; while the Decemvirs remorselessly put to death a Roman satiriat who waa bold enongh to attack and bring iuto contempt their authority. The eleveuth article is the ouly one that remains to be cousidered. I confess my inability to make anything out of that article. And ' novy, Senatora, after this review of the articlea of impeachment, we are prepared to form aome idea of the nature of this impeachment itself. Where now is the mischief? Where now ia the injury to any individual or to any officer of the government brought about by the action of the President? Whether actuated by good motives or bad, uo injury has foUovced ; uo public interest has suffered ; uo officer has beeu changed, either rightfully or wrongfully ; not an item of public property or public money has paased out of the cuatody of law or has been appropriated to improper uses. To all this it is aaid that it is enough that the law bas been violated', tha't powers have been assumed by the President not conferred upou hira by the Constitution of tbe Uuited States. It ja iu the order of the 2lBt of February, 1868, that it is 'claimed on the part of the managers that the President usurped ia power not granted by the Conatitution. If that propo sition eould be established the managers would still be a great way off from a conviction for anirapeachable offenae. Much more muat be made out beaidea the actual violation by ..the Pre^aident ofthe constitutioual provisione ; first of all, the criminal iutent to violote; and secondly, the exiatence of an, act of Congrees providing that such violations M||th eriminal intent should alnount to a high crime aqd misde- meanor. But I hasten to meet the managers upon the main propo sition, and I maintain with confidBnee that the orde'r iaaued on the 21st of February, 1868, for the reraoval of Mf. Stanton was isaued by the Preaident in the exercise of an undoubted power veated in hira by the Conetitution of the United Statea. No executive order isaued hv any Preai dent, from the time of Waahington downto the preaent, comee to ua with a greater eanction, or higher authority, or etrouger indorsements than thia order. If 'this order i8 Indeed, as it is clalme^.a tstii^ation of power not granted 262 IMPEACHM^T OP ANDREW JOHNSON. ty the CooptitTition, then Waahineton was a naurper in every month of his, admin istratiien. and ij,fter hiin every l-'rcaidont that ever occupied thait high office from hia day to that of the present incumbent,, for everyone of themha's ^exerciaed, without doubt and without 'question, thu: execu tive "power of removal from, ofiice. So far aa thie queetiou standa upon authority, it.may be said tohave beeu ninrO thoroughly and eati^factol¦iiy settled than anV one that has at anytime a;iritated thecountry; aettled first iu 1789 bv the very men who fraiiied the Conatitution itself^ then alter the lap^e aud acjuieaccnce of eome forty .yeara brought ^gaiu and a,gaiu into question in 1836. iu 185'J and in 1835. Butin tho worat party, tiracn it was never changed ,by the Legislature, but left as it was un^il the 2d of March, 1867, when^ after the lapse of almost ciglit.v.veara. anew rule waa attempted to be established \\^iie']i pi-Opbses to reverae the whole past. Mr. Stanbery argued .that althoufib tbe Constitution waa silent about the po\yer of removals, it.plainly implied that power. The purpose of makintj appointments subject to the advice and conaent of the Senate was to prevent corruption and favoritam, but not to give, the Seuate power to control the Executive. Continuing, he said : —I atand. then. Senators^ ou the con- Btitutioual power nf the President toremove Mr.Stantou from office. If he did in faet poaseaa that power, what 'becomea of the Tenure of Office act or , an.v thing else ib the way of L'-yislatiou ? If it ia a conatitulional power which he poci^esses, how ean it be taken away -by auy mode short of a constitutional araendraent'? Thon, too, if he deema it his eonstit-iitional power, how can you puuiah hira for following iu .good faith fhat oath which he has been compelled to, take, that he "will preeerve, proteet and defend the Constitution of the United Statea," Look, Seuators, at what liaa hap pened aince the beginning of this trial. During the pro gress of the caae^ on March 31, 1868,, a question aroae in which the Senato. 'aa an Impeachment Coui't were equally divid«d. Tbereupqn the Chief Justice decided the queation in the affirmative by his casting vote. 'I make nowthe following extract, from the miuiites of tbe next day, April 1. Mr. Stanbery then quoted from the proceed ings relative to Mr. Sumner's rceoi'iitiun declaring that the Chief Justice had uo authoi'ity to vote, and continued:- How near. Mr, Chief Justice, did you eome to the comipis- sion of an impeachable offenae, according to this modern doctrine announced hereby the managers? But it is s,aid on behalf of the managers, that althougli each department may bave a right to couatrue the Constitution for itself^iu the matter of its own action, that beiug so tbe legislative department may carry out ita own opinions of the Gousti tution to their final results,, even if thereby tbey totally abaorib every power of the Executive departraent. They aro the aole judges of theii" oivn powers when called upon to act, and muat decide for themaelves. But if tbey have this ultimate power of decit'ion, so alao haa the Executive; and if they haye a right to enforce their coustruction agaiuat the Executive, sp also hae the Executive a right to enforce ita conatruction agaiust theire. It wae to meet that very contingency, it waa to eave us from such fatal consoquencep. that the wisdom of our forefathers intro duced the Judicial Department ae tbo final arbiter of all siich, questioned That failing, there is but one alternative —an actual collision or a i'eaort to the people themselves, TMa laat is , the great eoijis^rvative, element i^oursovcrn- ment. Whcnthis fails ua all is gone. Wheu tho voice of the people ceases to be appealed to, or, being appealed to, ceaees to be lititened to, tlien faction and party will have accomplished thoir perfect work,, and thia frarae of government will, , like a worthleee thii^g, be caet away. Mr. Stanbery ' declared that . nothing was plainer than that it waa the d'lty of the Preaident to resist all eneroachmcnta on tbe Constitutiou. Continuing," he said : , — ^And novy, Senatgre, I ask your close attention to wbat seoma to me a raoet aingular eharactcriatic of this casQ. Ho w uoes it happen that for the first time in the history of our country the President of the United States haa boen suddenly subjected to sucb punitive legislation as that which waa passed on the 2d of March, 1867? Laws were paeaed on that day purporting to change the order of Exe cutive action, Such lawehaye not been uncommon, either incur national or. State , Legislatures. It hae often hap pened that thelegi.'^lative departmeut hae made changee in the mannei; of administration of the exeputi ve department, oftentimes imposing duties never, imposed before; oftcn- timea prescribing aetion iu the moat direct and explicit terms; but where before, has legislationof this aort been foundattendedwith such paina, and penalties as we find here? Now observe, Senatore, that neithor in the primi tive clauaes of the second aection of tbat Military Appro priation act, nor in the sixth section of that Teuure of Offiee act, is tlie Preaident ofthe Uuited States so much-as mentioned, Wlioever drew these' acts shrunk from re ferring to the office by uame. It ia jmdcr.the general de- seriptlon of "person" or "civil officer" that he is made liajjle to fine and iraprisonment for, failing to carry out the new provi^siona of thelaw. But there, isno question tlwit it Is tlie President, and the Preaident alone, tliat ia niean^. The law was 'made for him. Ho ia left no choice.no chance of appeal to the courts, no mode of testing t^he validity of the , new law. In theae pregnant worda the whole matter ia 8ettled.i There is, first of all, an euuincra- tion of what crimes are ifl the cpntomplationof the Coneti tution— treason and bribery; and thoy are,tn^ highest of oflficial crimes that can, be ebraraitted,. ?f theJ^Con^titur ;lion had stopped there, no doubtjioould exist.,, Would anything short of tireaaon have., sufficed for, an article Qf, impeachment— anything even ajuounting to midpii- son of treayon or eveu that •modern crirae in English lawi treaaon felony? Coidd any case have been made againpf the Preeident nnder an article allegins treaaoh, akurt of actual levying of war or .giving aid and comfort ^o the eueuiicB of the United Statea? Then as -to bribei4, woiild anything abort of actual bribery have sufficed? "Would an attempt to bribei~an act almost e^ual tp bj> bcrv, yet just ehort ofit? Certainly not. They lire crim'es and mipdv'racanors, says Mr. Burke, hot ()f form, biit of essence. You cannot call that a hjgh crime and misdO- meaner which, ih the nature of thiuge, ia nnt. There iaiiQ ro-mi/or cunning manufacture here, if a legislative act should undbrtake to declare' that the comraonc,=t assault and battery sliould be ! a high crime and ihlsdemeanOT under the-CobPtitution, that would not change its cHfeaee or i^iake it the hiSjh offense n hich the Com-titution rfi- quirca. Look through, all the correlative provif^iona of the Constituti'in on the subject, as to trial, convir-tion, jtidg- ment and punishment, as to pardons, , and laftt of all, 'to' that provision that, "the trial of all criniqe, except incases of'ipueachmeht; fihall be b.y jury," and that other pro viaiou, 'that aftel' conviction ou impeachment, "the party convicted shall nevertheleaa be liable and subject to inditjt- raent, trial, judgraent and puni.shment aecording to law*." If you are not yet aatiafied, exauiine the prcccediiigaof the convention that framed tills article, and see howstiidi. oualy they rejected all impeachin,~'nt for ,mtebehavi6r 'in oifice, and how steadily they adhered to the req itisition that nothing but ahigh crime and misdemeanor should the courta, and said:— Senators, where has thia heen shown on the part of the managers? Where ia there even a feeble attempt .to show it? But look now to the proof ori the part of the Presidont. Cabined, ci-ibbcd and coufini-d aa we haye been by the rulings.of theSenate upon this question, yet wbat appearp? From firat to last tbcgreat fact forces itaelf upou our attention thiit thia waa nn subterfuge of the President, no afterthought to escape the coneequences of an aet, but, on the contrary, that thw wholesorae arid, lawful purpose of a reaort to the proper tribunal tp aettle ,tbe difficulty between Congress aud hun- self waa iu the'mirid,of the President from the very begin ning. Tbey proved it by hia own declarations, iutrodiiced by tliemeclyes in ihis letter to General Grant, dated Ftbrii- ary 10, 1868. which may bc found on page 234 of the printed record. Que extract from that ,-lotter.will suffice. The Preaideut 'says:— ""You knew the President was iinwilUag to trust the office with any one who would not, py Ijoldiiig it, compel Mr. Stauton to resort to the eourts. You per fectly understood that in thia interview, some time aflier you accepted the oifice, tho Preaident, not content with your, silence, desired an expression of your views, and vpu answered him that Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to tbe courts." ' ., If this is not enough, ,Scnatora, remember the testimony of General Tliomaa, of General Shermau, of Mr. Cox, pf Mr, Merrick, .and see througjiout the purpose of the Presi dent! declared at all times, from first to laat, to bring tins . question to judicial arbitrament. After all this, what; a shocking perversion of tc;!timouy it is to pronounce it an aftertbouglit or a subterfuge. And after the proof of what took place on the trial of Thomas, howcanthe inanagera heboid enpiigh to say that they will "showyou, that he has taken no atep ,tp subiriit the matter to any court, al though more than a year baa el«^ed eince the pasaage pf the act." Senatora,iit was not at all necet^aary ,for the de fense of the President that, in the exercise of that diaci;e- tion which the law allow a to him^ he should be put to prove that hia iutentions'were all right. He has gone far be(>'ond the necessities of his case. Never wei,"e good in tentions and honest motivea more thoroughly, proved than they have been-proved in this case. I repeat it, that -if every thing, else lyere made out against him, this great ex culpatory fact must absolve him frora aJI criminal liability. And now. Senators, I Jbave done with the law and tho facta of the ease. There, remain^ for, me, however, a duty yet to be pei;formed-^one of solemn and important obligatioi^- a duty to my client, to ray former chicf,to ray friend. There may be thoae among you. Senators, who cannot find acaae of guilt against tho President. There raay be those among you who, not, satisfied .that a case for impeachmeht h?is yet arisen, aro fearful of , tne consequences of an acquittal- You raay cntertaipvague apprebensiona that, flushed wi4h the success Of acquittal, the Preaident will proceed to acts of violence andrevolu-tion. Senators, you do not know or underatand tho man. I caunot say that you wilfully mis understand him ; for I, too,, though never an extreme party man, have fielt moro than brice, iri the beat of party con- flietei, the aame bitter and uncompromising spirit thatm^ now animate you. The time has been wheu I looked uppn General Jackson as the moat dangerpue of tyrants. Tne time has beon wlien, day after day, I expected to aee him inaugurate a revpiutidn.; and yet. aftev hia admiuistratifBi. •was crowned with success and 8uetg.ined by the peoplev-I have lived to sec liim gracefully surrender hia great powers to the hands that conferred them, aud uuder tlio eorteumg influences of time, came to regard hiin, not as a tyranti but as ouo of the most honest aud patriotic of raen. i Now listen for a raoment to oue who,, perhape, undCT- stands Audrew Johnson better thaji most of.you,.for hifl opportunities have been greater, "when nearly *wo yeass ago he called, rae from the pursuits of a prpfeesional life fJ> take a seat iu liis Cabinet, I answered the call under a sense of public duty. I oame here almost a stranger to him.antt to every member of his Cabinet, except Mr. Stanton.i^ We had been frie^uds for raany yeare. Senators, need I tell vou that all ray tendencies are conservative? YQ;ii,''Mr. Chief Justice, who have known me for the third ofa cen tury, can bear me witness. X^awi not arms, is my pro&a- IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 2R3 sion. Fromthe moment thati was'houorcd witb a seat in the Cabinet of Mr. Jobueou not a step waa takeu that did uot coiuu uuder my observation, npt a i^ord was said tUat csciiTied my attention, ,1 i;i3garded hjiu closelv in Ca bmet audin still more private and cnntideutiaVconversa- tiou ; 1 sau- him of (;eu , tera|ttcd \^ ith bad advice ; I knew that evil counsellore, wore morc than once aroundhim; S, observed him with the most intense anxietv, but uever in' .word, in deed, in tiiought, iu action, did 1 di-cover in that man anything but loyalty to the.Cuuatitutiou and tho law'B. Ho atood, firm aaa rock against all teuiptation'to,, abuse hia o\vu,DOvvorB or t-o exercise tl^use which. ucre not- conferred upou him. Steadfact and self-reliant iutlie, midst of ditlicultiee, when dangers threatened, ^yhcn temp- tjitipns were strong, ho looked ouly to the Constitution of hia country aud to the people. Yea, Senatpra. I have seen tliat man tried , as ie>y have been tried. I have seen hia coufidence abused. I have secri hira endure day after day provocation such aa fe'w men have , ever been called .upon to meet. No man could have met f|hem jvith , more sublime patience. Sopner or later, ho,vvever, I knew the exploaion must eome. ¦ Aud when it did cpme jny ouly wonder was tbat it had been ao long delayed. Yes, Senato.riS, yVith all hia faults, thePreaident has been more, aiuuea against tliau sinning. Fear uot. then, to acquit liira. The Constitution' crfthe country is safe in bis handft from viplence, as it waa in the hands of Washington, ,B'ut it^ Senators, you, cou- demnhiih, if you atrip l^im of the rpbos of .office, if you de grade him to the utipost stretch of your power,Muark tho proplieayl , The strong arm of the people will.be abOut him. They will find a way to raise him from any depths to'^which Sou may coutigu him, arid we ehall live to see liim re- eemed and to hear the majestic voiee of the peqple:-- *'Well done, faithful servant, you shall have yom' reward!" But if,i Senatora, ae I cannot believe, t)ut as bas been boldly said with ahnost ofiicial aanctiou, your votes "have been eauvaaaed and the doom of the President is sealed, then let tliat judgracbt not be proriounced in this Senate chamber ; not here, whelo-our Camilliis iu the Jipur qf greatest peril, single-hauded, raet audTjaffljCd the enemies of the Repub lic ; uot here,, where he stood faithful araorig the faithless i iot hore, where he fought the good flght for the Uni'iu aud tho Con¬atitution;, not in thia Chamber, whose walla epho with that clarion voice that in tbe daya of [ pur greatest dauger carried hope, and comfort to many', a desponding heart, Btrous as an army with banners. No, not hero. Seek out rather the; 4ark66t, and gloomiest charaber in tho Bubterraneau receaaea ol this Capi;ol, wh^re tlic clieerful light of day never eutete. There erect the altar and immo late the victim. , At flnartcr to three P. M.' Mr. Stanbery reaumed the floor hiimaelf, and concluded his addreaa at^teu minutes paat three o'clock. . ' Tho court then, on motion of Senator HOWARD, ad- ourued until Monday ue^t. PROCEEDINGS OF MONOAV, MAY 4 ' Alarge audience was early aesembied this morning tohear the cloaiuiT aErumentP of Mr; Manager Bing ham, . No business was attempted to be done, and by direction of tbe Chief Justice the, argument imme diately began. Jiidere BJng'lia.m's Areunient. M^ -BINGHAM said;— Mr. Presaderit arid Senators:^ I protest, gentleman, that in no m^re pa|",tiflan apirit, in, no spirit ot robeutment, or prejudifie, do,l,coinc to the argu ment of this great iesue. A Repreaentativc, of the people, npon the obligation of my oath by order of.the people's Repreaentatives, in the name of the neople, and for the de fense of their Constitutiou and laws, this day aucaking, I " pray you, Senators, to hear me for ray caiise. But yester day, the supremacy of tbe Constitutiou, and laws w;aa chal lenged by_ arraed liebellion; to-day the supremacy ofthe Constitutiori 'and laws is^challenged by Executive usurpa tion, and this attempted tb ,be defended in the Seuate of the Uuited States. ' ' , For fo.ur years millions of men disputed fay arma the su preraacy 01 Araerican law and American aoil. Happily for ovyrcbmraon country, on the 9th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1865. the' broken battalions of treason, the armed resistance to law. aurrendered to the victorious legions-of this country- Ou that day. Senators,, not with out sacrifice, riot without suffering, not without martyr dom, the laws were vindicated. On that day, word went' ^over our.£orr6:W- stricken lapd and to every nationality, tnat the repubiic,''the last refuge of constitutioual liberty* the last sanctuary of inviolable justice, was saved, forever Baved by the sdcrifice, the virtue and tho valor ot its chil dren. , '' ¦ , - J I On the l4th day Of Arirll, 1865, here in the Capital, amidst the joy and'gladuess ox the people fell Abraham, Xjiueolri,' by an assassin's ha^nd. A President of the United; S^tea Blain, riot for his crimes but for his vir-tUea, and esneciaUy, fof his fidelity to duty, that highest Svord reVfealedljy God to mah. By the death of Abraham Lincolu Andrew John- sou, then \ ice President bf fhe United Statea, becarae Preaident. Upon taking the prescribed oath, tiiitbfully to e:^ecute the otuce of l^i'eaidcnt, and preserve, protect, aud defend thO Conatitutiou of the United rftatcf, the great ¦ people, I^ovyiug with uncovered^hcads in tlie pre.-^ence of' that'striiuge, grief and sorrou which' came upnnthcmi, forgot,£Rr t,];e inorac-nt the di."graceful part ¦\'hich Andrew Jclni.?oji bad played upon thin tribune of the Senate, on the 4th day uf March, 18ti5, dud accepted his oatli as suc- iccrfBor of Abraham Liucwln, iiijj allirmatiou and Lia.-^urauco that he would take care that the lawa be faithfully exe- I cuted. I ' ' It i,", Seuators, withthe people, au intuitive judgment, the highcht couvictiou 'of thu htimau intc-lltet, that the oath, faithf'ullv, to oJ;ecute the office of Preaideut, and pre aerve, protect and defend 'the Conatitutiou of the lnited Stiitc!', meauF. and must forever mean, while the' Consti- tutiun reraaina aa itia, that the Preaideut will himself obey and' corapel othci'f, bv the wliole povVer ol the people, to obey the lawa which ahall be enacted by the people, through their Repreaentativea iu Congress, uutil the aaluo sliall have beeu duly repealed by tbo law-making power—' shall havebeen actually vevereed by the bupreuie Court of the United States a\ ithin the limitations and i-eatric- tiona of the Conetitution itaelf. For these purpoaes and of this argument. Senators, we muet accept this aa the gen&-' ral judgment of tbe fjebple of thia country. A^suraedlyi it ia the pride of every Ameripan, thrft no man ia above the' lawa and np raan beneath' them. That the Presidtnt him aelf is aa much the subject pf law a,8 the humblest ciitizeri in the remoteat frontier of vour cvbr nd\ aucing civilization, I need not eayin thia preaence, surrounded bythe re-- presentatives of the people, that among the American people there ia no sovereign save God, except tbe laivs enacted by themselves, obligatory alike upou eaeh and all, .official and unofficial, the obligation of which ceases ouly with their I'epeal, or their actual reversal in the mode'pr^ scribed by the people themselvea. Thia, Senators, and I airi almpst fearful that I may offend-iu' eaying it, but thia is one of the traditions of the Republic- and is under stood from the Atlantic to the Pacihc shore by the five and thirty millions of people who d-.vell bctweDu tnoae shores, and hold in tbeir bauds to-da;ythe greatest trust ever committed, iu the providence of God, to any political soOietv, I feel myself justified, ehtirely justified, in saying that ii I'est-j nbt aimply upon the traditions of the people, but is embodied in tbeir written recorda frpm the day when the fi|efcy atrife began on the field ^ of Lexington to this hour, ' , , .^ It is not declared'in that immortal Declaration which will live ae long as our language lives, as uue of the cauaea of the move againat the King of Great Britain, that he had permitted the governors ol -theae' colonies to withhold the execution of the lawa of the land rintil they ehould have received his assent, aud that thpy ahould be suspended. Furthermore. I use the words of the Declaration, which, lilcie the words of Luther, were'half battles-, they ahould be «uspended uutil theyhad received his aseent, aud that was be first voice of tho?e iraraortal raeu with' whom God walked through the night aud storra and darkness of the Revoiutidu; aud whom he taught to lay here to the going 'dowu'of the eun, the foundation ot those inatitutions of civil and religious' liberty which have since becoiri'e the hope of the world. I quote that Writteu record furthoE. Still a,skiug pardon of the Senate, praying them to re member thati speak thie day uot simply lu the presence of Senators, but in the preaence of au expectant and wMt- ing people, who have commiBaioued you to diacharge this high. trii.st and who haVe committed to you, Senators, the isaueaof life and death td thia republic. I refer you tp the words of Washington, firet of Americans and foremost of meu, who declared tbat the Constitution, which at all timea cxiata; uulCBB changed by tlie aet of the whole peo ple, "is aacredly obligatory upon all." I refer next to a higher authority, whichis the expression of the collective pov\'ers and will of the whole people df tho United States, lu which it is asserted that this Constitution, aud tbe la\V8 riiade in pursuance thereot, and all treaties made, or w-hich shall be made by the aaithority of the United btatea, shall bc the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State ghall be bound thereby, auything iu the Conetitution or laws ot any State to tbe contrary notwithstanding. That ia the solemn dtclairatiou of the Conatitution itseffi and pending this trial, witlioiit a parallel m the history of nations, it should bb written upou theae walls and con sidered not simply by the Senator?, but by that portion of the people who look dowu from these gufienea upon tfiiB grave proceeding. The Conetitution aud tbe laws passed in pursuftric6 thereof ehall bc the supreme law ol the' land, anvthing iu tho Cou.-titution or laws of any State to the eouti'ai:y notwithtitauding. How are these, proposl. tions, so plain aud simple that the M'ajjai-ing raan, though afoSi, could uot err therein, met b.y the retained couriseU who appear for hire to deleud thia treaaon and thiSbf Wal of trust of an outraged people. 1 he proposition is met by stating to the Senate with an audacity that hag scarcely a parallel in judicial pruceedmga, that ever* olhcial may challenge at hia pleasure the aupreme la,w of the laud, and csVcially that the Preaideut of the Unitgd States charced by uia oath, charged bv the expreas let;ter o^ the Constitution, shall take care,that the laws be f^iithfuUv, executed, is nevertheleaa invested with the power to inter pret tbe Conatitutiou for himaelf, and determine judicially:. Senators, I use theworda used by the learned gentleman who opened the caae for the accused, and "deterraine judi. cially whether the. laws declared by the Constitution to be aupreme, or are uot null and void because theydo not happen to accord with his judgment," That is the defense 264 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDRE"W JOHNSON. wliich is presented here before fhe Senate of the United States, upon which they are ask^d to declare that the Executive ia clothed with powers judicial. I repeat their oy^n words, and I desire that it may be twined iuto the brain of the Senators when they come to deliberate upon this qnestion, that the President may judicially construe the Conatitution for himself, and judicially" determine finally for hiraaelf, whether the .laws which, by your Con stitution are deelared to be sueh, are not after all null and void, of no effect, aud not to be exeeuted becauae it is not his pleasure. When his highness, Andrew, Johneon, first king ofthe people ofthe United States, in imitation of George III, at tempts to suspend their execution, he ought to reinember thatit was said by thoae who set the Revolution in irio- tion, and who contributed to the organization of this go vernment, that Caesar had hia Brutua ; that Charles I had hie Cromwell, and he would do well to profit by that ex ample. , Nevertheless, the poaition is aaanmed iu the preaence of the Senate, in the preaence of the people of the United Statea, and in the presence of fhe civilized world, that the Preaideut ofthe United Statee is invested with the ju dicial power of determining the force and effect of the Constitution, the force oT his obligation under it, and the force and effect of every law' passed by the Congress of tbe United States. Senatora, if the President may declare an act unconstitu tional without danger to ¦ his ofiicial position, I respectfully subrait that the Constitutiou which we have been taught ^jo revere as the eacred charter ofour Sberties ia iatlaat a Conatitution, of anarchy, and not a Constitution of order ; a Constitution whieh authorizes the violation of law, and of the Constitution which enjoins obedience to law : aud I furtiier respectfully submit to .you, Senators, that wheu you shall have established any such rule by your eolemu judgnient which you will pronounce at the close of theae proceedings, it needs no prophet of the' living God to foresee that you will have proved youraelves the arcbiteete of your country's ruin; that you will have transformed this land of law and order, bf light arid know ledge, into a laud of darknesa, tbe very light whereof will be darkness; into aland where "night and chaos, the an- cestora of nature, will bold eternal anarchy amid tbe noise of endless war J' . Gentlemen, they may glaze them over aa they may, they may excuee with specious pretexts and arguments, as they may, the acta of this guilty President, the fact never- ^olesB, reiriaina patent to the obsei;yation of all VJght- minded meu, iu thia country, that the questibn on Which the Senate must, as tbe iesue jqined between the people of the United States and the President, is whether the Preaident may at his pleasure and without peril to lus official poaition, set aside and annul both the Coustitution ^nd the laws of the United States, and thereby inaugurate anarchy. That ia the issue. No, matter what demagogues may say of it in thia Chamber : rio matter what retained counael may say of it ineide of this Chamber— that is the issue, and the recording angel of history has already struck it into the adamant of" the past,- there to abide forever. On that iaaue, Seuators, you, the Houae of Repreaenta tives, and their representatives at this bar, 'will stand or fail before the final tribunal of the future. That is the is sue. It is all there is of it. What ia embraced in th^ae ar ticles of impeachment ia all that there is in it. Iu spite of the technicalities of counsel, in spite of the fatal pleas that nave been interpoeed here in hia defense, that iS the issue —it is the head and front of Andrew Johnson's offending, that he has assumed to himself the excluaive prerogative of interpreting the Constitution and of deciding ' on the validity of tho laws at hia pleasure. Stripping the defense of all specious reasoning, it is based on this startling proposition that the President can not be held to answer, ny the people or by their represen tatives, on irapeachment for any violation of the Constitu tion, or of the lawa, beeauee of^his asserted constitutional right to interpret for himeelf, aud to execute and disre- fard, at hie discretion, any provieion, either of the Coneti- ution or of the laws of the United States. ; I say it again, Benatora, with every respect to the gentlemen wno sit nere aa the repreaentatives of States aud as representatives as well of that great people who are one people, that the man who has heard this prolonged discuaeion, running through days and weeks, who does not understand this to be the plain, eimple ftroposition at last, raade in the hearing of Senators, insisted upon in defense of tho Preaident, is one ofthose unfortunates, to whom God, in his providence, has denied the usual measure of intelligcncej and of that faculty which ^ve call reaaou. The power to decide thia great ¦gueation between the people and the President, ia veated. solely and excliiaively In the Senate. The responsibility, Seuatore, to decide iiright, rests exclusively upon the Benate. That reaponaibility cau be divided by the Senate with no human beiug outaide of this Chamber. It is all important to the people of the United States, as Jt is all important tn their represeri tatives iu Congres^ assembled, and certainly is all important to the Sen^tot'S sworn todo juatice in tho premises, between the people and tbe President, that thia great isaue, which touches the national life, shall be decided iu accordance witb the letter of tbe Conatitution. It ia all important that it should be decided iu accordance witb that juatice, to eatabliah which the Conatitution itself was ordained— that juetiee, before the majoaty of which we thia day bow, as before the ma- jeBty ot that God whose attribute it is-that justice which dwelt with Him before the worlds were, which trill exit t '^¦itli Him whou worlde are no 16ngor, by whieh ype shall bo judgfjd for this day's proceedli^Ba. The Senate having the sole power to try impeachment, ia necCBBarily vested by every intendment ofthe Constitu*. tion with the aole and excluaive power to decide every raatter of law and of fact involvedin the issue, and yet^ Senatora. although that would seera to be a self-evident propoBition, hours have been spent here to persuade the Senate of the Uuited States that the Senate at last has not the aole power to try every isaue of law and of fact ariaing ou the question between the people and 'the Prea^ deut. The ex- Attor ney- General well said, the other day, and quoted a farailiar canon iu interpretation when he saidit, that effect must be given to every word m a written statute. Let ett'ect be given to eveiy Word Of the wntten statute ofthe people's fundamental law— the Constitution of the United States— and thereis an end of all controversy aboift the exact power of the Senate to decide here quea tiona of law and of fact arising on this iaeue. W hy, then, tbia long-continued discussion on the part of the counael for tbe President, resting on a remark of a col- 1 ague, in his opening in behalf of tbe people, that this was not a court. Wasitan attempt to divert the'Senate from the express provision of the Constitution that they shall be the aole and final— I add another word to the argument— the final arbiters between the people and the Pi^esident? What meant this empty criticism about the worde of my. colleague that thia was not a court, but the Senate of the UnitedStates? My colleague, Mr.Chief Justice, simply followed the plain words of the Constitution, that the Se nate shall have the sole power to try iinpeaehmeut. I propose rieither to exhaust my atrength nor the pa tience of tbe Seuate by dwelling upon this mieevable dis tinction to be made between the Senate and the court., That is what it reaults in at laat, althougb it came after a deal of deliberation, after a great many daysof 'incuba- tiori, and after mapy utterancea on riiany subjecta con cerning things both in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, and in the waters under the earth. (Laugh ter.) I do not propose to imitate the example of the learned and accomplished counsel for the Preeident ou the trial of thia grave iesuej which earriee with it so grave re sults to all the people of the United States, not only of this day, but all generations hereafter. I hope to be saved, in the providence of God and by His grace, from beeoming, as was the counael for the President in thia august pre sence, a mere t ater up of syllables, a mere snapper up of unconaidcred trifles. tLaugliter.) I propose to deal in'thisdiseuesion with principle?, not trifles light aa air. , I care not if the gentlemen' chooae to call the Senate, aitting In a triiil of impcacljm.ent, a court. The Conatitutiou calls it a Senate. I "know, as every other intelligent mari knoivs, that ' the Senate of the United States, sitting on the trial of impeachment, ia the highest judicial tribunal in the land. That is conceding enough ¦ to put an end Ao all tbat was eaid on tliat subject; some of it moet enlemnly," like th6' stately' rftgument of the learned gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Curtis) ; some df it nioet tenderly by the affecting and adroit argu ment of my learned aud accomplished friend from Ohio (Mr. Groesback) aud eome of it raost wittily, so witty that he held hjs own sides , lest he would explode with laughter at hia own wit. bythe learned gentleman from (New York (Mr. Evarts) who- displayed more of Ijatin than of law in his arguraent, more of rhetoric than' of logic, and more of intellectual pyrotechnica than of either, .(Laughter.).,. Seug-tors, I_ anx.jiof to be diverted ny th^se fareworka^ liy these Roman can dles, by ' these fiery serpents that are let off at pleasure and to order by the accomplished' gentle man from New York. Upon the point made here between the people a^d the President hy his advocatee, I stand upon the plain, clear letter of the Constitutlonj Wheu it declares that.the Senate shall have the boIo power to try ira pbach ments, it neceesarily invests the Senate with the aole. iand_ exclusive power to determine finally and forever, every iesue of law and of fact arieipg in the caae. Tbis is one of those self-evident propOeitious arising under the Constitution of the United States wliich Hamilton states, iu words clear and strong, and which must carry conviction to the mind of every irian. This iS' oue pt thoae trutha which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind.carriea ita own evideuce alongwith it, andmaybe obscured, but caunot be made plainer by arguraeut or rea son. It rests on maxims aa simple as thev are univerfial- The persona from whoee agency the attainment of an end is expective, oughtto possess the means by which'lt is to be attained. The end is expected, bv the letter of your Constitution, from the Senate of the United States, to decide finally and for themselves every issue of law and of fact arising between tbe people aud their accused Preai dent. What comes then, I want to know, Senators, of thatargument of the learned gentleman frora New York ftlr. Evarts)? The most significant thought of which waa ftiia, that the right way, and the effectual way bV which a mau raay luake his speech immortal, is to malce ^t eternal. (Laughter). What becomes of his long-dravni out sentences here about the right of the accused and guilty man who standa this day clothed with perjury as with a garment in the presence of the people, to be tribd first In tbe Supreme Court of the Uuited States, before the Seriate shtdl proceed to trial and judgment? Senators, the people ofthe Uriited States, tliMueh their^ representatives in Congress' aesembled, have imvde provi sions for such unfortunates aa ari)- not able to take cafe of ! theraeelvea across thh BaBierri Branch, on the crown ot yonder greenhill. where they can be cared for— alluding to the Inaano Asylum. The Senate is veated with the sola, and exclusive power to try this question, and the Supreme IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 265 Court of the United States has no more power to intervene or to have judgment of the premises thau has the Court of of St. Peterabilrg to the people of the United Statea. I hesitate not to say^ will hold, nevertlielea3,'clear and manifeit aa this j?ropoaition is, that has been ineieted upon here from the opening of thia defence to ita cloae, by all the counael who have participated iu this dlacuesion, that the Supreme Coi,irt 18 thehnal arbiter for the decision of all questions anting under the Coustitution. I do not Slate the propositions too broadly. Senators, my occupa- tzons have been of auch a nature, aince the commeuce- mfflit of the trial to this hour, that I have relied more Upon my meraoi-y of what counsel aaid, than upon any reading) which I have given to their voluminous and endless arguments in defenee, of the accused; but I ventnre to say that the propoaition is not more broadly - statedby me than it hasbeen stated bv them. I subrait to the Senate that there are many queations arising under the Constitution whieh by no possibilily can be cou- sidered aa original queationa, either in the Suprerae Court, or iri any other court of the United Statea. For example, my learned and accomplished friend, who honors rae witli his attention, and who represents tb© great aud growing Conimouwealth of Illl noia on this floor, Senator TrumbuU, is here, and is to re main here, not by force of any deeision that the Supreme Court has tnade or may horeaiter ftiake. It ia not a ques tion within their jnriBdiction. IlUuois, one of those great commonwealths, which, eince the prganization of the Con stitution, and within Tthe memory of living man, has sprung frora the shores of the beautiful Ohio and the golden sands ofthe Pacific, is here, under the direct obligation of the Constitution ofthe United States, The people ny their Constitution did provide that the Congress shall have power to admit new States into this Uuion, and when the Congreas paaeed upon the question of whether the people ot llliuoia had organized a government republican in form and well eutitled to assume their place iu the aisterbood of comrabu wealths, the deciaion waa final-, and the judge of the Supreme Court who darea to challenge the great aeal of the State which the Senator represents would be inatautly ejected from his place— which he would thereby dishonor and dis grace— by the supreme power of the people speading and iUiting through tno process pf impeacliment. It does not belong in any sense of the word to thejudicial powerof the United States to decide all questions ariaing under the Coristitfition and laws. According to the logic of the coun sel for the Preaident, the Suprerae Court would eome to sitin judgment at laet on the power given exclusively to each House to judge of the election and qualifications of ita own membera, Sei^atora, the judicial power of She United States ia entitled to aU respect and to all consideration, hore -and everywhere else^ but that judicial power, as is well known to Senators, ia defined and limited by theterma of the Couatitution, and beyond that limitation or outaide of it, tbat tribunal can not go. I read from the Conatitution the provisiona in An swer to the argument ofthe gentleman touehiug the judi cial power of tho United States :~ .Section 1. The judicial power of the United Stqites shall be vested in one supreme eourt and fn such inferior courts ¦ sea the Congresi may from time to time ordain and estab lish. The judgea both of the Suprerae and inferior courts rfiall hold their oflices duriug good behavior, and shall at stated terms receive for their services a compeuaation, which shall not be diminished during their contmuance in ofiice. Section 2. The jndicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or whifch sliall be made, nnder their authority ; to all cases affecting arabas sadors and other public ministers and consula ; to all caees of admiralty and raaritirae jurisdiction: to coptroveraies to which the United States phall be a party; to controver sies between two or raore States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens .of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State or the citi/.ena thereof, and foreign Statea, citizens or subjects; in all caaea afiTecting 'ambassadors and other public uiiniatera aud consuls, and these in whieh a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court ahall have oiigiual i'uriadiction;in all the otber caaea before mentioned the lupreme Court shall have appellate juriadiction, both aa to law and fact; v ith such exceptioua 'and under auch regu- lationa as the Cvjuf ress shall make. The trial of all crimes, except in caees of impeachment, ihall be byjury, aud such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been coraraitted; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. Sections. Treason against, the United States shall con- slat only in levyin,^ war agairist them, or in adhering to their enemiea, givirig~them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted oif treason unlees on tho testimony df twe wietnessea to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congreaa nhall have jiower to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blOod, or forfeiture, except during the life of the peraon attainted. -^^ As I said before, Inaamuch as the Senate of the United States has the sole pbwer to try impeachment, and there fore the excluaive power finally to determine all questions thereon; it results that its decision can neither be re- btrictod'by judgnientsin advance, made either by tha Su preme Court, or hy any other court of the United States, nor can the final judgment ofthe Senate on impeachment be subjected to review by the several courts of the United States, or to reversal by the executive pardon, for it is writteu in the Coustitution that the pardoning power shaU not extend to irapeachment, and irapeachment ia not a caae in law aud equity, within the meaning of the terra, aa eraployed in the third article of the Conatitution, which Ihave just read. It'is in no sense a caae within the general judicial power of the United States. Senatora, no one is either bold enoiTgh or weak enough to atand in the presence of the United States, and clearly and openly proclaira and avow that the Supreme Court haa the power to try impeact ments, NeverthelcBS. the position aasumed iu thia defenae for the accuaed—that he may sui^end the laws without peril to his orneial position, and may interpret and coa- Btrue theConstitution for himself, without peril to his olflcial position, if he states, either, after the crime or after the faet, that his only object in violating the Couatitution or in auapending the law was to obtain at some future day a judicial conatruction of the one or a'j udicial decision on the validity of the other, and that, therefore, the Senate is not to hold him to ariswer an imjpeachment for a high crirae and miademeanor — doea involve tbe propo aition. and no man can pet away fr*m it, that the court at laet haa a supervising power over this unlimited and unrestricted power of impeachment, vested by the people in the Houee of Kepresentativea, aud over this unreBtricted power of trial of impeachraent, veated by the people in the Senate of the United States. On that proposition I am willing to atand, defying any man here, and my learned frieud, to challenge it successfnlly. The poaition aaauraed by the accused means that or it meana nothiug. If it does noti mean that it is a tale told by aa idiot, full of sound and fury, aud means nothing. Now I aak you. Senatora, what colorable excuse there fa for presenting auy such monstrous proposition as that tp the consideration of the Seriate of the United States. I think rayeelf justified in reiterating the words of Johu Marahall, that it ia respectful to conclude that the ' Senafs knows soraething. The original jurisdiction of the Supremo Court cannot by any poaaibilitv extend to a ease of iitt-' peachment. Seuators will recollect the text of the Conet»- tution which I have already read, that the original juriB- diction of the Supreme Court is, by the expreas lettar of the Constitution restricted to "foreign ambas sadors, other public ministers and consuls," and to cases to which a,State iriay be a party. . Tne accused is not a foreign ambaaaador ; the accuaed is not a foreign minister the accuaed ia not a eonaul. andthe accuaed is not as yei, thank God, the State. Therefore, the accused is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supi'eme Court ot the Uuited States. The counsel for the President, who dwelt so learnedly and so loug ou this questiou. quoting from the great case of Marbury vs. Madison, ought to baise recollected that the Chief Juatice, wbo pronounces that i^eciBion, and whuae intellect shed a steady and luminous light on the Judicinry of the country for a third of a ceibi tury, declared whit no man haa since questioned, that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, aa laid down in thC'textof the Constitution, can neither be enlargecl nor restricted by Congreaaional enactraent. Thoee gentlemen ahould have recollected, further, whea they invoked the intervention ofthe Suprerae , Court, or of any other court, between the people and the accuaed Preaident, tbat tbe appellate juriadiction of the Supreme Court, by innumerable decisione, dependa excluaively, uuder the Constitution, upon the will of Congreea ; ao that they muat go to sorae other tribunal for a eettleraent of thie great queation between the people and the President, unleea Congreae choose to let thera go to the Supreme Court by a special enactment for their own benefit. The 4 appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as defined hi the Constitution by words clear and plain, aud incapable of any misunderstandine or misconstruction, excludes the coriclusion thata caee of impeachment can, by, any possi bility, be within the jurisdiction of any 01 the courts of the United States— either its District, or Circuife, or Su preme Court. The Senate will notice that by the terras of the Constitu tion the appellate jurisdiction of the Diatrict and Circuit Courts is limited and restricted to the cases iu law and in equity, and the other cases specifically named in tbe Con stitution,, neue of which erabrace the caae of impeachment.. There is, therefore, Senatoi-a, no room for invoking the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on any question touching the liability of the President to answer impeachment by the people's repreeentativea at the bar of the Senate. ¦Whatexcuse, therefore, I aek, for the pretenee that the Pre sident may eet aside and dispense with the execution of the laws, all or any of them enacted by the Congress, under the pretext of defending the Coustitution bv invoking a judicial inquiry in the court of the United States. _ But! know, Senators, that the only two questions which by ' poasibility could become a subject of judicial decision ana which have been raieed by the learned and astute couneef who hare attempted to make thie defense, have already been decided by the Supreme Oourt. The firat ia that the heads of departments are fhe mere registering secretariea of the President, and are bound to recognise his will aa their sworn duty. I deny it. I deny that propoaition, aud I think the leamed gentleman from NewYork (Mr. Evarta) did well, did remarkably well, aa ho doea evervthiug well, to quote in advance for our in atruction when we would come to reply to hira on thia p(5int, thoae divine words of the great Apostle of the Geiv- tile^, where he apeaks of chanty aa patient and long auf- ferine. It requires. Senators, charity broader than tha charity of the gospel, to ait patiently by and hear those gentleman ^VOKe the decision of the Supreme Court upoa Id 2G6 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. either of the questions involved in that iBsue,-when we know that those gentlemen, overflowing as thy manifestly are, with all learning, ancient and modern; the learning of the dead as well as the leaming of the living, knew nght well that the Suprerae Corirt had solemnly decided both queetions againsf them. Now for the proof. As to the obligation of the heads of departments to leaiti their duty under the law from the will of the Executive, the Senate will recollect that the learned gentleman from New York quoted the great caae of Marbury audi Madiaon with wondrous skill aud dex terity. He took good care, however, not to quote that part of the decisiou which absolutely settled thia quCBtion as to the liability of the Secietaries to reepond to the will ofthe Executive. He took care to keep that in the background. Perhaps he assumed that he knew all that the managers of the House knew about this case, and then, that he knew all that he knew himeelf beaides. (Laughter.) He gathered from the paat, from Cicero against Catalirie, and from Cicero against Verrea, and from that speech of Cicero in defense of Milo, whioh happened never to have been made until after poor Milo was convicted, for hp was made to cry out that if Cicero had made that speeeh for him on bia trial, he would not, on that day be undergoing puuiah ment. I will read now the qecision of Chief Juatice Marshall, in the ease of Marbury and Madison, touching thia alleged f^ligation of the heAds of departments, to take the w^ll of the ExecuVvo as their law. Chief Juatice Marshall saya (page 168, Ist Cranch):— "It is the duty of the Secre tary of State to conform to the law, and not to obey the inatruetions of the President." This only illustrates the propoaition that neither the President nor his Secretariea are above the Conatitution, or above the laws which the people enacted. As totbe other propoaition. Senators, set up in the defense of this accused and guilty President, thathe may with impunity, under tbe Constitution and lawa of the United States interpret the Conatitution and sit in judicial judgment, as the gentleman from Massachusetts ^ I^aeny that, for a siugle raoment, he was regardless of the obliga tion of hia oath or of the requirements of the , Conetitu tion, I deny that he ever violated your laws. I deny that'he ever assumed to hunself the power claimed by this 'apostate Preaident, this day. to_ Buepend the laws and dispense with their execution. Ihoufih dead, he yet speaks from the grave, and I ask Senators, When they corae to conaider this accu sation againat their murdered President, to poii- der on the words of his first inaueural, when mani festly alluding to the Fhgitive Sliive law, he aaid to the Araerican people that however much we may dislike laws npon our statute books, we are not at hberty to defy them. or to disregard them, or set them aaide, but must await tho actiou of tlie people and their repeal by tbe law-making power. Oh I hut. aay the gentlemen, ne suspended the habeas corpus— the gentlemen were" too learned not to know that it has been eettled law from the earliest times to this hour that in the inedat of arms the law is silent. You cannot suppress warby amagiBtrate'a warraut or a couBtable's staff. Abraham Lincoln simply followed the accepted law of the civilized world iu doiug what be did. , I answer further, for I want to leave uo particle unan swered, I would consider myaelf dichonored, being able to epeak hero for him when he canuot apoak for him^'elf, if I left any colorable authority for tbat aeeault on hi-* chjv- racter unanswered and unchallenged. But, eay the gen tlemen, you have passed your indemnity. Who' is there so weak as not to know that it is in vaiu that you pass In demnity acts to protect the President? If, after all, his acts were unconstitutional, you must go * a step further than that. You must deuy jurisdiction to the courta ; yoil muet shut the'dooCs of your temples of juatice ; you must silence your ministers of tho law before you pass an indemnity act that will protect them, if hia act at last was unconatitutionaL That waa not the pur pose of the act, if it waa the general Indemnity act that waa referred to. I had the honor to draw it myself, al though I claira uo personal credit for it. It is not unknown in the legislation or this country or any other couutry. Congreea paaaed a aimilar act iu 18tJ2. The geueral act to which I refer w as pasaSd in 1867. That act was simply de claring that the ai:ts of tho President in the premises, and of those who were acting uuder the President in the pre miaes, shall be barred prosecution against tnera in the courts. If it be in the po\ver of the nation to defend itself v if it b6 coneti tutional to defend the Conatitutiou ; if it be constitutional for the Preeident to suraraun the people to the defense of their own lawa, of their own firesides, and of their own nationality, thelaw said that that should be' an authoritv for the court to dismisa tbe proccediug on the ground that the act was done under order of the President. 1 will not atop to argue the queation. It hasbeen argued by wager of batfle, aud it has beeu settled beyond the r^ view of this tribunal or any tribunal, that the public aafety is the highest law, and that it ia part and parcel of the Conatitution of the United States. I have answered. Senators, aud I truat I have answered satisfactorily all that haa been said by the counsel of the President, for the purpose of giving Boiue color of justification to the mon- atroiis plea which they have interpoaed for the firat time m history, that it pertains to the Execufive prerogative to iuterprettho Couatitution judicially for himaelf, and to deterraine judiciaUy the validity of every law paased by Congress, to execute or to suspend, or to dispose with its execution at his pleasure." 'The court hore took a recess for fifteen minutes. ' ^ After the receas Mr. BINGHAM repeated the point at which he had auepended bis, remarka and coutinued, as follows:— I beg pardon of the Senate for having forgotten to notice the very astute argument, made by the learned couuael from New York on behalf of the President, teaching the broker's refuaal to pay the license under the tax law by tbe advice of the learned counsel and who was finally Srotectcd in the courts.- I may say again, that the intro- uction ofsuch au argument aa that was an insult to the indulgcmce ofthe American Senate. It docs uot touch this questiouj and the man wbo doea not understand that proposition la not fit to stand in tho presence nf this tribunal and argue for a moment any iseue involved in thia ease. Nothing is more clearly set tled—and I ought to ask pardon at every atep for making sucn a reference to the Senate— nothing is more 'clearly aettled, uuder the American Coufctitution .and its interpre tation, thau that the citizen upon whom thelaw operates is authorized by the Constitution to decline compliance^ without resistance, and appeal to the courts. That was the caae of the New York broker to whieh tbe learned counBci referred, and desperate' must be tbe caso ofhis client if it stands upou any such slender defense. Who ever heard, Senatora, ofthat law of univereai ap plication iu this country: of the right ofthe citizen quietly, without resistance, without meditating resistance, to ap peal to the courta against the oppression of the law being applied to the BW,Orri executor of the law? The learned gentleraan firom New York wouldhave given raore light on this subject, if he had informed us that the collector, under your revenue law. had dared, under the letter of authority df Andrew Johnson, to set aaide your Constitu tion, aud upon his own authority, coupled with tbat of the chief, to defy your laws. The questions are as.wide as life and death, as light and darkucBS, and no further word rieed be aaid by me to the "Araerican Senate fin answer to that. I may be pardoned now, Senatora, far referring to other provisiona of the Coilatitutiou whicli eustain and make clear the poaition which I aaaume as the basis of my argument, that thei letter of the law paased by the people's repre'Sentatives-in ¦Congress aaaembled includes the Executive. I have given you ah'eady the 8oleTr.u deciaion of the Supreme Court of the United States upon this sub- jeetv unquestioned -or-