Contents:

Page No 1

Page No 2

Page No 3

Page No 4

History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson............................................................................................1

Edmund G. Ross......................................................................................................................................1

Little is now known to the general public of the history of the attempt to remove President Andrew Johnson

in 1868, on his impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate for alleged high crimes

and misdemeanors in office, or of the causes that led to it. Yet it was one of the most important and critical

events, involving possibly the gravest consequences, in the entire history of the country.

The constitutional power to impeach and remove the President had lain dormant since the organization of the

Government, and apparently had never been thought of as a means for the satisfaction of political enmities or

for the punishment of alleged executive misdemeanors, even in the many heated controversies between the

President and Congress that had theretofore arisen. Nor would any attempt at impeachment have been made

at that time but for the great numerical disparity then existing between the respective representatives in

Onehalf the members of that Congress, both House and Senate, are now dead, and with them have also gone

substantially the same proportion of the people at large, but many of the actors therein who have passed

away, lived long enough to see, and were candid enough to admit, that the failure of the impeachment had

brought no harm to the country, while the general judgment practically of all has come to be that a grave and

A new generation is now in control of public affairs and the destinies of the Nation have fallen to new hands.

New issues have developed and will continue to develop from time to time; and new dangers will arise, with

increasing numbers and changing conditions, demanding in their turn the same careful scrutiny, wisdom and

patriotism in adjustment. But the principles that underlie and constitute the basis of our political organism,

are and will remain the same; and will never cease to demand constant vigilance for their perpetuation as the

To those who in the study of the country's past seek a broader and higher conception of the duties of

American citizenship, the facts pertaining to the controversy between the Executive and Congress as to the

restoration and preservation of the Union, set out in the following pages, will be interesting and instructive.

No one is better fitted than the author of this volume to discuss the period of reconstruction in which, as a

member of the Federal senate, he played so potent and patriotic a part, and it is a pleasure to find that he has

discharged his task with so much ability and care. But it is profoundly hoped that no coming generation will

be called upon to utilize the experiences of the past in facing in their day, in field or forum, the dangers of

disruption and anarchy, mortal strife and desolation, between those of one race, and blood, and nationality,

The close of the War of the Rebellion, in 1865, found the country confronted by a civil problem quite as

grave as the contest of arms that had been composed. It was that of reconstruction, or the restoration of the

The country had just emerged from a gigantic struggle of physical force of four years duration between the

two great Northern and Southern sections. That struggle had been from its inception to its close, a continuing

exhibition, on both sides, of stubborn devotion to a cause, and its annals had been crowned with illustrations

of the grandest race and personal courage the history of the world records. Out of a population of thirty

million people, four million men were under arms, from first to last, and sums of money quite beyond the

limit of ordinary comprehension, were expended in its prosecution. There was bloodshed without stint. Both

sides to the conflict fought for an ideaon the one side for socalled State Rights and local

selfgovernmenton the other for national autonomy as the surest guaranty of all rightspersonal, local,

The institution of negro slavery, the basis of the productive industries of the States of the South, which had

from the organization of the Government been a source of friction between the slaveholding and

nonslaveholding sections, and was in fact the underlying and potent cause of the war, went under in the

The struggle being ended by the exhaustion of the insurgents, two conspicuous problems demanding

immediate solution were developed: The status of the now exslaves, or freedmenand the methods to be

adopted for the rehabilitation of the revolted States, including the status of the revolted States themselves.

The sword had declared that they had no constitutional power to withdraw from the Union, and the result

demonstrated that they had not the physical powerand therefore that they were in the anomalous condition

of States of though not States technically in the Unionand hence properly subject to the jurisdiction of the

General Government, and bound by its judgment in any measures to be instituted by it for their future

The now exslaves had been liberated, not with the consent of their former owners, but by the power of the

conqueror as a war measure, who not unnaturally insisted upon the right to declare absolutely the future

status of these persons without consultation with or in any way by the intervention of their late owners. The

majority of the gentlemen in Congress representing the Northern States demanded the instant and complete

enfranchisement of these persons, as the natural and logical sequence of their enfreedment. The people of the

late slave States, as was to have been foreseen, and not without reason, objectedespecially where, as was

the case in many localities, the late slaves largely outnumbered the people of the white race: and it is

apparent from subsequent developments that they had the sympathy of President Lincoln, at least so far as to

To add to the gravity of the situation and of the problem of reconstruction, the people of the States lately in

rebellion were disfranchised in a mass, regardless of the fact that many of them refused to sanction the

It was insisted by the dominant element of the party in control of Congress, that these States were dead as

political entities, having committed political suicide, and their people without rights or the protection of law,

It is of record that Mr. Lincoln objected to this doctrine, and to all propositions that contemplated the

treatment of the late rebellious States simply as conquered provinces and their people as having forfeited all

rights under a common government, and under the laws of Nations entitled to no concessions, or even to

consideration, in any proposed measures of restoration. That he had no sympathy with that theory is

It was at this point that differences arose between Mr. Lincoln and his party in Congress, which became more

or less acute prior to his death and continued between Congress and Mr. Johnson on his attempt to carry out

The cessation of hostilities in the field thus developed a politicoeconomic problem which had never before

confronted any nation in such magnitude and gravity. The situation was at once novel, unprecedented, and in

more senses than one, alarming. Without its due and timely solution there was danger of still farther

disturbance of a far different and more alarming character than that of arms but lately ceased; and of a vastly

more insidious and dangerous complexion. The war had been fought in the open. The record of the more than

two thousand field and naval engagements that had marked its progress and the march of the Union armies to

success, were heralded day by day to every household, and all could forecast its trend and its results. But the

controversy now developed was insidiousits influences, its weapons, its designs, and its possible end, were

in a measure hidden from the publicpublic opinion was divided, and its results, for good or ill,

problematical. The wisest political sagacity and the broadest statesmanship possible were needed, and in their

In his annual message to Congress, December 8th, 1863, Mr. Lincoln had to a considerable extent outlined

his plan of Reconstruction; principally by a recital of what he had already done in that direction. That part of

his message pertinent to this connection is reproduced here to illustrate the broad, humane, national and

patriotic purpose that actuated him, quite as well as his lack of sympathy with the extreme partisan aims and

methods that characterized the measures afterward adopted by Congress in opposition to his wellknown

wishes and views, and, also, as an important incident to the history of that controversy and of the time, and its

bearing upon the frictions that followed between Congress and Mr. Lincoln's successor on that subject. Mr.

When Congress assembled a year ago the war had already lasted twenty months, and there had been many

conflicts on both land and sea, with varying results. The rebellion had been pressed back into reduced limits;

yet the tone of public feeling and opinion, at home and abroad, was not satisfactory. With other signs, the

popular elections, then just past, indicated uneasiness among ourselves, while, amid much that was cold and

menacing, the kindest words coming from Europe were uttered in accents of pity that we were too blind to

surrender a hopeless cause. Our commerce was suffering greatly by a few armed vessels built upon and

furnished from foreign shores; and we were threatened with such additions from the same quarter as would

sweep our trade from the sea and raise our blockade. We had failed to elicit from European Governments

anything hopeful upon this subject. The preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, issued in September, was

running its assigned period to the beginning of the new year. A month later that final proclamation came,

including the announcement that colored men of suitable condition would be received into the army service.

The policy of emancipation, and of employing black soldiers, gave to the future a new aspect, about which

hope and fear and doubt contended in uncertain conflict. According to our political system, as a matter of

civil administration, the General Government had no lawful power to effect emancipation in any State; and

for a long time it had been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it as a military

measure. It was all the while deemed possible that the necessity for it might come, and that, if it should, the

crisis of the contest would then be presented. It came, and, as was anticipated, was followed by dark and

doubtful days. Eleven months have now passed, and we are permitted to take another review. The rebel

borders are pressed still further back, and by the complete opening of the Mississippi the country dominated

by the rebellion is divided into distinct parts, with no practical communication between them. Tennessee and

Arkansas have been substantially cleared of insurgent control, and influential citizens in each, owners of

slaves and advocates of slavery at the beginning of the rebellion, now declare openly for emancipation in

their respective States. Of those States not included in the Emancipation Proclamation, Maryland and

Missouri, neither of which three years ago would tolerate any restraint upon the extension of slavery into the

new Territories, only dispute now as to the best mode of removing it within their own limits.

Of those who were slaves at the beginning of the rebellion, full one hundred thousand are now in the United

States military service; about one half of which number actually bear arms in the ranks; thus giving the

double advantage of taking so much labor from the insurgent cause, and supplying the places which must

otherwise be filled with so many white men. So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers

as any. No servile insurrection, or tendency to violence or cruelty, has marked the measure of emancipation

and arming the blacks. Those measures have been discussed in foreign countries, and contemporary with such

discussion the tone of sentiment there is much improved. At home the same measures have been fully

discussed, and supported, criticised, and denounced, and the annual elections following are highly

encouraging to those whose official duty it is to bear the country through this great trial. Thus we have the

new reckoning. The crisis which threatened to divide the friends of the Union is past.

Looking now to the present, and future, and with reference to a resumption of national authority within the

States wherein that authority has been suspended, I have thought fit to issue a Proclamation, a copy of which

is herewith transmitted. On examination of this Proclamation it will appear, as is believed, that nothing is

attempted beyond what is amply justified by the Constitution. True, the form of an oath is given, but no man

is coerced to take it. The man is only promised a pardon in case he voluntarily takes the oath. The

Constitution authorizes the Executive to grant or withhold the pardon at his own absolute discretion, and this

includes the power to grant on terms, as is fully established by judicial and other authorities.

It is also proffered that, if in any of the States named a State Government shall be, in the mode prescribed, set

up, such Government shall be recognized and guaranteed by the United States, and that under it the State

shall, on the constitutional conditions, be protected against invasion and domestic violence. The

constitutional obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of

government, and to protect the State, in the cases stated, is explicit and full. But why tender the benefits of

this provision only to a State Government set up in this particular way? This section contemplates a case

wherein the element within a State favorable to a republican government, in the Union, may be too feeble for

an opposite and hostile external to or even within the State; and such are precisely the cases with which we

Any attempt to guaranty and protect a revived State Government, constituted in whole, or in preponderating

part, from the very element against whose hostility it is to be protected, is simply absurd. There must be a test

by which to separate the opposing elements, so as to build only from the sound; and that test is a sufficiently

liberal one which accepts as sound whoever will make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness.

But if it be proper to require, as a test of admission to the political body, an oath of allegiance to the

Constitution of the United States, and to the Union under it, why also to the laws and Proclamation in regard

to slavery? Those laws and Proclamations were enacted and put forth for the purpose of aiding in the

suppression of the rebellion. To give them their fullest effect, there had to be a pledgefor their

maintenance. In my judgment they have aided, and will further aid, the cause for which they were intended.

To now abandon them would be not only to relinquish a lever of power, but would also be a cruel and an

astounding breach of faith. I may add at this point, that while I remain in my present position, I shall not

attempt to retract or modify the Emancipation Proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is

free by the terms of the Proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress. For these and other reasons it is

thought best that support of these measures shall be included in the oath; and it is believed the Executive may

lawfully claim it in return for pardon and restoration of forfeited rights, when he has clear constitutional

power to withhold altogether or grant upon terms which he shall deem wisest for the public interest. It should

be observed, also, that this part of the oath is subject to the modifying and abrogating power of legislation

The proposed acquiescence of the National Executive in any reasonable temporary State arrangement for the

freed people is made with the view of possibly modifying the confusion and destitution which must, at best,

attend all classes by a total revolution of labor throughout whole States. It is hoped that the already deeply

afflicted people of those States may be somewhat more ready to give up the cause of their affliction, if, to this

extent, this vital matter be left to themselves; while no power of the National Executive to prevent an abuse is

The suggestion in the Proclamation as to maintaining the political framework of those States on what is

called reconstruction, is made in the hope that it may do good without danger of harm. It will save labor and

But why any proclamation on this subject? This question is beset with the conflicting views that the step

might be delayed too long or taken too soon. In some States the elements for resumption seem ready for

action, but remain inactive apparently for want of a rallying point. Why shall A. adopt the plan of B., rather

than B. that of A.? And if A. and B. should agree, how can they know but that the General Government here

will reject their plan? By the Proclamation a plan is presented which may be accepted by them as a rallying

point, and which they may be assured in advance will not be rejected here. This may bring them to act sooner

The objection to a premature presentation of a plan by the National Executive consists in the danger of

committals on points which could be more safely left to further developments. Care has been taken to so

shape the document as to avoid embarrassment from this source. Saying that, on certain terms, certain classes

will be pardoned, with rights restored, it is not said that other classes on other terms will never be included.

Saying that reconstruction will be accepted if presented in a specified way, it is not saying it will not be

The movements, by State action, for emancipation in several of the States not included in the Emancipation

Proclamation, are matters of profound gratulation, and while I do not repeat in detail what I have heretofore

so earnestly urged upon this subject, my general views and feelings remain unchanged, and I trust that

Congress will omit no fair opportunity of aiding these important steps to a great consummation.

In the midst of other cares, however important, we must not lose sight of the fact that the war power is still

our main reliance. To that power alone can we look, for a time, to give confidence to the people in the

contested regions that the insurgent power will not again overrun them. Until that confidence shall be

established, little can be done anywhere for what is called reconstruction. Hence our chiefest care must still

be directed to the Army and Navy, who have thus far borne their hardest part nobly and well. And it may be

esteemed fortunate that in giving the greatest efficiency to these indispensable arms, we do also honorably

recognize the gallant men, from commander to sentinel, who compose them, to whom, more than to others,

the world must stand indebted for the home of freedom disenthralled, regenerated, enlarged and perpetuated.

The following is the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction referred to in the foregoing Message, and

Whereas, in and by the Constitution of the United States, it is provided that the President "shall have the

power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment;"

Whereas, a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal State governments of several States have for a long time

been subverted, and many persons have committed, and are guilty of treason against the United States; and

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and treason, laws have been enacted by Congress, declaring

forfeitures and confiscations of property and liberation of slaves, all upon terms and conditions therein stated,

and also declaring that the President was thereby authorized at any time thereafter, by proclamation, to extend

to persons who may have participated in the existing rebellion, in any State or part thereof, pardon and

amnesty, with such exceptions and at such times and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the

Whereas, the Congressional declaration for limited and conditional pardon accords with well established

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion, the President of the United States has issued several proclamations,

Whereas, it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said rebellion to resume their allegiance to

the United States, and to reinaugurate loyal State Governments within and for their respective States;

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who

have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a

full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of them, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to

slaves and in property cases where rights of third parties shall have intervened, and upon the condition that

every such person shall take and subscribe an oath, and thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate,

and which oath shall be registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the tenor and effect following,

I, ___ __ ___ , do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Union of the States thereunder; and that I

will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion

with reference to slaves, so long and so far as not repealed, modified or held void by Congress, or by the

decision of the Supreme Court; and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all

proclamations of the President made during the existing rebellion having reference to slaves, so long and so

far as not modified or declared void by decision of the Supreme Court. So help me God.

The persons exempted from the benefits of the foregoing provisions are all who are, or shall have been, civil

or diplomatic officers or agents of the socalled Confederate Government: all who have left judicial stations

under the United States to aid the rebellion; all who are or shall have been military or naval officers of said

socalled Confederate Government above the rank of Colonel in the army or Lieutenant in the Navy; all who

have left seats in the United States Congress to aid the rebellion; all who resigned commissions in the army

or navy of the United States and afterward aided the rebellion; and all who have engaged in any way in

treating colored persons, or white persons in charge of such, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war, and

which persons may have been found in the United States service as soldiers, seamen, or in any capacity.

And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known that whenever, in any of the States of Arkansas, Texas,

Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina, a number

of persons, not less than onetenth in number of the votes cast in such State at the Presidential election of the

year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, each having taken the oath aforesaid and not having

since violated it, and being a qualified voter by the election laws of the State existing immediately before the

socalled act of secession, and excluding all others, shall reestablish a State government which shall be

republican, and in no wise contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government of the

State, and the State shall receive thereunder the benefits of the constitutional provision which declares that

"the United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall

protect each of them against invasion; and, on the application of the legislature, or the executive (when the

And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known, that any provision which may be adopted by such State

government in relation to the freed people of such State, which shall recognize and declare their permanent

freedom, provide for their education, and which may yet be consistent as a temporary arrangement with their

present condition as a laboring, landless, and homeless class, will not be objected to by the National

And it is suggested as not improper that, in constructing a loyal State government in any State, the name of

the State, the boundary, the subdivisions, the constitution, and the general code of laws, as before the

rebellion, be maintained, subject only to the modifications made necessary by the conditions hereinbefore

stated, and such others, if any, not contravening said conditions, and which may be deemed expedient by

To avoid misunderstanding, it may be proper to say, that whether members sent to Congress from any State

shall be admitted to seats, constitutionally rests exclusively with the respective houses, and not to any extent

with the Executive. And still further, that this proclamation is intended to present to the people of the States

wherein the National authority has been suspended; and loyal State governments have been subverted, a

mode in and by which the National authority and loyal State governments, may be reestablished within said

States, or, in any of them; and while the mode presented is the best the Executive can suggest, with his

present impressions, it must not be understood that no other possible mode would be acceptable.

Given under my hand at the City of Washington, the eighth day of December, in the year of our Lord one

thousand eight hundred and sixtythree, and of the Independence of the United States of America, the

How the revolted States could be most successfully and expeditiously restored to their constitutional relations

to the Union on the cessation of hostilities, was the momentous question of the hour, upon which there were

views and schemes as varied and antagonistic as were the mental differences and political disagreements of

those who felt called upon to engage in the stupendous work. As history had recorded no similar conditions,

and therefore no demand for the solution of such a problem, there were no examples or historic lights for the

It is apparent that Mr. Lincoln maintained the indestructibility of the States and the indivisibility of the

Unionthat the resolutions of secession were null and void, and that the States lately in rebellion were never

in fact but only in theory out of the Unionthat they retained inherently, though now dormant, their State

autonomy and constitutional rights as before their revolutionary acts, except as to slavery, and that all their

people had to do, to reestablish their former status, as he declared to the Emperor of the French when that

potentate was about to recognize the Confederacy, was to resume their duties as loyal, lawabiding citizens,

and reorganize their State Governments on a basis of loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. The terms he

proposed to formally offer them were first illustrated in the case of Louisiana, early in 1863, and later in the

foregoing Message and Proclamation; and clearly indicated what was to be his policy and process of

Messrs. Flanders and Hahn were admitted to the House of Representatives as members from Louisiana

agreeably to the President's views thus outlined. They had been chosen at an election ordered by the

Governor of the State (Gov. Shepley), who had undoubtedly been permitted, if not specially authorized by the

President, to take this step, but they were the last to be received from Louisiana under Mr. Lincoln's plan, as

the next Congress resolved to receive no more members from the seceded States till joint action by the two

Prior to the election at which these gentlemen were chosen, Mr. Lincoln addressed a characteristic note to

Gov. Shepley, which was in effect a warning that Federal officials not citizens of Louisiana must not be

chosen to represent the State in Congress, "We do not," said he, referring to the South, "particularly need

members of Congress from those States to get along with legislation here. What we do want is the conclusive

evidence that respectable citizens of Louisiana are willing to be members of Congress and to swear support to

the Constitution, and that other respectable citizens are willing to vote for them and send them. To send a

parcel of Northern men as Representatives, elected, as would be understood, (and perhaps really so) at the

Mr. Lincoln would tolerate none of the "carpetbagging" that afterwards became so conspicuous and

These steps for reconstruction in Louisiana were followed by the assembling of a convention to frame a new

constitution for that State. The convention was organized early in 1864, and its most important act was the

prompt incorporation of an antislavery clause in its organic law. By a vote of 70 to 16 the convention

declared slavery to be forever abolished in the State. The new Constitution was adopted by the people of the

State on the 5th day of the ensuing September by a vote of 6,836 in its favor, to 1,566 against it. As the total

vote of Louisiana in 1860 was 50,510, the new government had fulfilled the requirement of the President's

In a personal note of congratulation to Gov. Hahn, of Louisiana, the President, speaking of the coming

convention, suggested that "some of the colored people be let in, as for instance, the very intelligent, and

especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks." "They would," said he, "probably help in some

trying time in the future TO KEEP THE JEWEL OF LIBERTY IN THE FAMILY OF FREEDOM."

This action in regard to Louisiana was accompanied, indeed in some particulars preceded, by similar action in

Arkansas. A Governor was elected, an antislavery Constitution adopted, a State Government duly installed,

and Senators and Representatives in Congress elected, but were refused admission by Congress. Mr. Sumner,

when the credentials of the Senatorselect were presented, foreshadowing the position to be taken by the

Republican leaders, offered a resolution declaring that "a State pretending to secede from the Union, and

battling against the General Government to maintain that position, must be regarded as a rebel State subject

to military occupation and without representation on this floor until it has been readmitted by a vote of both

Houses of Congress; and the Senate will decline to receive any such application from any such rebel State

A few weeks later, on the 27th of June, 1864, this resolution was in effect reported back to the Senate by the

Judiciary Committee, to which it had been referred, and adopted by a vote of 27 to 6. The same action was

had in the House of Representatives on the application of the Representativeselect from Arkansas for

This was practically the declaration of a rupture between the President and Congress on the question of

Reconstruction. It was a rebuke to Mr. Lincoln for having presumed to treat the seceded States as still in any

sense States of the Union. It was in effect a declaration that those States had successfully secededthat their

elimination from the Union was an accomplished factthat the Union of the States had been brokenand

that the only method left for their return that would be considered by Congress was as conquered and

outlying provinces, not even as Territories with the right of such to membership in the Union; and should be

governed accordingly until such time as Congress should see fit (IF EVER, to use the language of Mr.

Stevens in the House) to devise and establish some form whereby they could be annexed to or

It was at this pointon the great question of Reconstruction, or more properly of Restorationthat the

disagreements originated between the Executive and Congress which finally culminated in the impeachment

of Mr. Lincoln's successor; and that condition of strained relations was measurably intensified when, on the

following July 4th, a bill was passed by Congress making provision for the reorganization and admission of

the revolted States on the extreme lines indicated by the above action of Congress and containing the very

extraordinary provision that the President, AFTER OBTAINING THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, shall

recognize the State Government so established. That measure was still another and more marked rebuke by

Congress to the President for having presumed to initiate a system of restoration without its consultation and

advice. Naturally Mr. Lincoln was not in a mood to meekly accept the rebuke so marked and manifestly

intended; and so the bill not having passed Congress till within the ten days preceding its adjournment

allowed by the Constitution for its consideration by the President, and as it proposed to undo the work he had

done, he failed to return it to Congress"pocketed" itand it therefore fell. He was not in a mood to accept

a Congressional rebuke. He had given careful study to the duties, the responsibilities, and the limitations of

the respective Departments of, the Government, and was not willing that his judgment should be revised, or

Four days after the session had closed, he issued a Proclamation in which he treated the bill merely as the

expression of an opinion by Congress as to the best plan of Reconstruction"which plan," he remarked, "it

He further stated in this Proclamation that he had already presented one plan of restoration, and that he was

"unprepared by a formal approval of this bill to be inflexibly committed to any single plan of restoration, and

was unprepared to declare that the free State Constitutions and Governments already adopted and installed in

Louisiana and Arkansas, shall be set aside and held for naught, thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal

citizens who have set up the same as to further effort, and unprepared to declare a constitutional competency

in Congress to abolish slavery in the States, though sincerely hoping that a constitutional amendment

While, with these objections, Mr. Lincoln could not approve the bill, he concluded his Proclamation with

"Nevertheless, I am fully satisfied with the plan of restoration contained in the bill as one very proper for the

loyal people of any State choosing to adopt it, and I am and at all times shall be prepared to give Executive

aid and assistance to any such people as soon as military resistance to the United States shall have been

suppressed in any such State and the people thereof shall have sufficiently returned to their obedience to the

Constitution and laws of the United Statesin which Military Governors will be appointed with directions to

"It must be frankly admitted," says Mr. Blaine in reciting this record in his 'Thirty Years of Congress,' that

Mr. Lincoln's course was in some of its respects extraordinary. It met with almost unanimous dissent on the

part of the Republican members, and violent criticism from the more radical members of both Houses. * * *

Fortunately, the Senators and Representatives had returned to their States and Districts before the

Reconstruction Proclamation was issued, and found the people united and enthusiastic in Mr. Lincoln's

In the last speech Mr. Lincoln ever made, (April 11th, 1865) referring to the twelve thousand men who had

"If we now reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We say to the white

man, you are worthless, or worse. We will neither help you or be helped by you. To the black man we say,

'this cup of liberty which these, your old masters hold to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave you to

the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents IN SOME VAGUE AND UNDEFINED WHEN

AND WHERE AND HOW.' If this course, discouraging and paralyzing to both white and black, has any

tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have so far been unable to

perceive it. If, on the contrary, they reorganize and sustain the new Government of Louisiana, the converse of

all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of twelve thousand men to adhere to their

work and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The

colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance and with energy and daring to the

same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise. HE WILL YET ATTAIN IT SOONER BY SAVING

Concede that the new Government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg to the fowl; we shall

It is manifest that Mr. Lincoln intuitively foresaw the danger of a great body of the people becoming

accustomed to government by military power, and sought to end it by the speediest practicable means. As he

expressed it, "We must begin and mould from disorganized and discordant elements: nor is it a small

additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and

Louisiana was wholly in possession of the Union forces and under loyal influence in 1863, and in his

judgment the time had come for reconstructive action in that statenot merely for the purpose of

strengthening and crystallizing the Union sentiment there, at a great gateway of commerce, that would

become a conspicuous objectlesson to foreign governments in behalf of more favorable influences abroad,

but also to the encouragement of Union men and the discouragement of the rebellion in all the other revolted

States. He had fortified his own judgment, as he frankly declared, "by submitting the Louisiana plan in

The steps taken in Louisiana were to be but a beginning. The nature of subsequent proceedings on his part

must be governed by the success of thisthat under then existing conditions it was inexpedient, in view of

further possible complications, to forecast further proceedings, and especially to attempt to establish, at the

outset, and under the chaotic conditions of the time, a general system of reconstruction applicable to all the

States and to varying conditions. So the beginning was made in Louisiana. It is manifest that the purpose of

this immediate action was twofoldnot only to restore Louisiana to the Union at the earliest practicable

daybut also to so far establish a process of general restoration before Congress should reconvene at the

coming December session, that there would be no sufficient occasion or excuse for interfering with his work

by the application of the exasperating conditions that had been foreshadowed by that body.

On this point Mr. Welles, his Secretary of the Navy, testifies that at the close of a Cabinet meeting held

immediately preceding Mr. Lincoln's death, "Mr. Stanton made some remarks on the general condition of

affairs and the new phase and duties upon which we were about to enter. He alluded to the great solicitude

which the President felt on this subject, his frequent recurrence to the necessity of establishing civil

governments and preserving order in the rebel States. Like the rest of the Cabinet, doubtless, he had given

this subject much consideration, and with a view of having something practical on which to base action, he

"The President said he proposed to bring forward that subject, although he had not had time as yet to give

much attention to the details of the paper which the Secretary of War had given him only the day before; but

that it was substantially, in its general scope, the plan which we had sometimes talked over in Cabinet

meetings. We should probably make some modifications, prescribe further details; there were some

suggestions which he should wish to make, and he desired all to bring their minds to the question, for no

greater or more important one could come before us, or any future Cabinet. He thought it providential that,

this great rebellion was crushed just as Congress had adjourned, AND THERE WERE NONE OF THE

DISTURBING ELEMENTS OF THAT BODY TO HINDER AND EMBARRASS US. If we were wise and

discreet, we should reanimate, the States and get their governments in successful operation, with order

prevailing and the Union reestablished, BEFORE CONGRESS CAME TOGETHER IN DECEMBER. This

he thought important. We could do better, accomplish more without than with them. There were men in

Congress who, if their motives were good, were nevertheless impracticable, and who possessed feelings of

hate and vindictiveness in which he did not sympathize and could not participate. Each House of Congress,

he said, had the undoubted right to receive or reject members, the Executive had no control in this matter. But

Congress had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, which the President could

recognize, and under existing laws treat as other States, give the same mail facilities, collect taxes, appoint

judges, marshals, collectors, etc., subject, of course, to confirmation. There were men who objected to these

The subjugated States were in a condition that could not be safely permitted to continue for any indefinite

period. It would be inconsistent with the purpose of the war, incongruous to the American system and idea of

government, and antagonistic to American political, or even commercial or social autonomy. Naturally upon

Mr. Lincoln would fall largely the duty and responsibility of formulating and inaugurating some method of

restoration. With the abolition of slavery, the most difficult of settlement of all the obstacles in the way of

reconstruction had been removed. Naturally, too, during the later months of the war, when it became manifest

that the end of the struggle was near, the question of reconstruction and the methods whereby it could be

most naturally, speedily, and effectively accomplished, came uppermost in his mind. A humane, just man,

and a sincere, broadbrained, patriot and farseeing statesman, he instinctively rejected the many drastic

schemes which filled a large portion of the public press of the North and afterwards characterized many of

the suggestions of Congressional action. With him the prime purpose of the war was the preservation of the

political, territorial and economic integrity of the Republicin a word, to restore the Union, without needless

humiliation to the defeated party, or the imposition of unnecessarily rigorous terms which could but result in

future frictionswithout slaveryand yet with sufficient safeguards against future disloyal association of

the sections; and that purpose had been approved by an overwhelming majority of the people in his

In these purposes and methods Mr. Lincoln appears to have had the active sympathy and cooperation of his

entire Cabinet, more especially of Mr. Stanton, his Secretary of War. Indeed, Mr. Stanton is understood, from

the record, to have been the joint author, with Mr. Lincoln, of the plan of reconstruction agreed upon at the

later meetings of the Cabinet immediately prior to Mr. Lincoln's death. Mr. Stanton proposed to put it in the

form of a military orderMr. Lincoln made an Executive order. The plan was embodied in what afterwards

became known as the "North Carolina Proclamation," determined upon by Mr. Lincoln at his last Cabinet

meeting and promulgated by Mr. Johnson shortly after his accession to the Presidency as Mr. Lincoln's

Mr. Lincoln unquestionably comprehended the peculiar conditions under which the Republican party had

come to the control of the legislative branch of the Government, and fully realized the incapacity of the

dominant element in that control for the delicate work of restoration and reconstructionleading a

conquered and embittered people back peacefully and successfully, without unnecessary friction, into

No such responsibility, no such herculean task, had ever before, in the history of civilization, devolved upon

Mr. Lincoln seems to have realized the incapacity of party leaders brought to the surface by the tumult and

demoralization of the time, whose only exploits and experiences were in the line of destruction and who must

approach the task with divided counsel, to cope successfully with the delicate and responsible work of

restoration the close of the war had made imperative. He comprehended the incongruities which characterized

that great party better than its professed leaders, and foresaw the futility of any effort on its part, at that time

and in its then temper, to the early establishment of any coherent or successful method of restoration. Hence,

unquestionably, his prompt action in that behalf, and his failure to call the Congress into special session, to

the end that there should be no time unnecessarily consumed and lost in the institution of some efficient form

of civil government in the returning Statessome form that would have the sanction of intelligent authority

competent to restore and enforce public order, without the dangers of delay and consequent disorder that must

result, and did afterwards result, from the protracted debates sure to follow and did follow the sudden

precipitation of the questions of reconstruction and reconciliation upon a mass of Congressmen totally

inexperienced in the anomalous conditions of that time, or in the methods most needed for their correction.

That Mr. Lincoln contemplated the ultimate and not remote enfranchisement of the late slaves, is manifest

from his suggestion to Gov. Hahn, of Louisiana, hereinbefore quoted in connection with the then approaching

Convention for the reestablishment of State Government there, and again still more manifest from his last

public utterance on April 11, 1865, deprecating the rejection by Congress of his plan for the restoration of

Louisiana, in which, he said, speaking of that action by Congress rejecting the Louisiana bill: "Grant that the

colored male desires the elective franchise. He will attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps

It is also apparent in the light of the succeeding history of that time and of that question, that if Mr. Lincoln's

views had been seconded by Congress, the enfranchisement of the negro would have been, though delayed, as

certain of accomplishment, and of a vastly higher and more satisfactory planeand the country saved the

years of friction and disgraceful public disorder that characterized the enforcement of the Congressional plan

As to the success of Mr. Lincoln's plans, had they been sanctioned, or even had they not been repudiated by

Congress, Mr. Blaine, in his book, asserts that Mr. Lincoln, "By his four years of considerate and successful

administration, by his patient and positive trust in the ultimate triumph of the Union, realized at last as he

stood upon the edge of the gravehe had acquired so complete an ascendancy over the public, control in the

It was indicative of the sagacious foresight of Mr. Lincoln that he did not call the Congress into special

session at the close of the war, as would have been natural and usual, before attempting the establishment of

any method for the restoration of the revolted States. The fact that he did not do so, but was making

preparations to proceed immediately in that work on his own lines and in accordance with his own ideas, and

with the hearty accord of his entire Cabinet, of itself affords proof that he was apprehensive of obstruction

from the same element of his party that subsequently arose in opposition to Mr. Johnson on that question, and

that he preferred to put his plans into operation before the assembling of Congress in the next regular winter

session, in order that he might be able then to show palpable results, and induce Congress to accept and

follow up a humane, peaceful and satisfactory system of reconstruction. Mr. Lincoln undoubtedly hoped thus

to avoid unnecessary friction. Having the quite unlimited confidence of the great mass of the people of the

country, of both parties and on both sides of the line of hostilities, there seem to be excellent reasons for

believing that he would have succeeded, and that the extraordinary and exasperating differences and local

turmoils that followed the drastic measures which were afterward adopted by Congress over the President's

vetoes, would have been in a very large degree avoided, and THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO

It was the misfortune of the time, and of the occasion, which determined Mr. Lincoln to institute a plan of

restoration during the interim of Congress, that the Republican party, then in absolute control of Congress,

was in no sense equipped for such a work. Its first and great mission had been the destruction of slavery.

Though not phrased in formal fashion, that was the logic of its creation and existence. It was brought into

being purely as an antislavery party, illustrated in the fact that its membership included every pronounced

antislavery man, known as abolitionists, in the United States. All its energies, during all its life up to the

close of the war had been bent to that end. It had been born and bred to the work of destruction. It came to

destroy slavery, and its forces had been nurtured, to the last day of the war, in pulling downin fact, did not

The work of restorationthe rebuilding of fallen Stateshad now come. The Republican party approached

that work in the hot blood of war and the elation of victorya condition illy fitting the demands of exalted

Never had nation or party thrust upon it a more delicate duty or graver responsibility. It was that of leading a

conquered people to build a new civilization wholly different from the one in ruins. It was first to reconcile

two races totally different from each other, so far as possible to move in harmony in supplanting servile by

free labor, and the slave by a free American citizen. The transition was sudden, and the elements antagonistic

in race, culture, selfgoverning powerindeed, in all the qualities which characterize a free people.

There was a wide margin for honest differences between statesmen of experience. A universal sentiment

could not obtain. The accepted political leaders of the time were illy equipped to meet the issuemuch less

those who had been brought to prominence, and too often to control, in the hot blood of war and the frictions

of the time, when intemperate denunciation and a free use of the epithets of "rebel," and "traitor," had become

a ready passport to public honors. It was a time when the admonition to make haste slowly was of profound

significance. A peril greater than any other the civil war had developed, overhung the nation. Greater than

ever the demand for courage in conciliationfor divesting the issues of all mere partyism, and the yielding

Mr. Lincoln had been elected President in 1860, distinctively as a Republican. In 1864, however, the

conditions had changed. The war had been in progress some three years, during which the insurgents had

illustrated a measure of courage, endurance, and a command of the engineries of successful warfare that had

not been anticipated by the people of the North. It was seen that to insure the success of the Union cause it

was imperative that there should be thorough unity and cooperation of the loyal people of all partiesthat it

was no time for partisan division among those who hoped ever to see a restored Republicthat it was

necessary to lay aside, as far as possible, mere partisan issues, and to unite, in the then approaching

Mr. Lincoln had given so satisfactory an administration so wisely, efficiently, and patriotically had he

conducted his great office, that he was on all sides conceded to be the proper person for nomination and

election. The Convention of 1861 was not called as a Republican Convention, but distinctively as a Union

"The undersigned," so ran the call, "who by original appointment, or subsequent delegation to fill vacancies,

constitute the Executive Committee created by the National Convention held at Chicago on the 10th day of

May, 1860, do hereby call upon all QUALIFIED VOTERS WHO DESIRE THE UNCONDITIONAL

vigorous war, and all apt and effective means; to send delegates to a convention to assemble at Baltimore, on

Tuesday, the 7th day of June, 1864, at 12 o'clock noon, for the purpose of presenting candidates for the

The delegates met pursuant to this call. Hon. Edwin D. Morgan, of New York, Chairman of the Union

National Committee, called the Convention to order, and Robert J. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, was chosen

temporary Chairman. In the course of his introductory address, Mr. Breckinridge said:

Passing over many things which it would be right for me to say, did the time serve, and were this the

occasionlet me add,you are a Union party. Your origin has been referred to as having occurred eight

years ago. In one sense it is true. But you are far older than that. I see before me not only primitive

Republicans and primitive Abolitionists, but I see also primitive Democrats and primitive Whigs. * * * As a

Union party I will follow you to the ends of the earth, and to the gates of death. But as an Abolition partyas

a Republican partyas a Whig partyas a Democratic partyas an American party, I will not follow you

Mr. William Dennison, of Ohio, was chosen President of the Convention. On taking the chair he said:

'In no sense do we meet as members or representatives of either of the old political parties which bound the

people, or as the champions of any principle or doctrine peculiar to either. The extraordinary condition of the

country since the outbreak of the rebellion has, from necessity, taken from the issues of these parties their

practical significance, and compelled the formation of substantially new political organizations; hence the

organization of the Union Partyif party it can be calledof which this Convention is for the purpose of its

assembling, the accredited representative, and the only test of membership in which is an unreserved,

After perfecting its organization the Convention proceeded to ballot for a nominee for the Presidency, and

Mr. Lincoln was unanimously nominatedthe Missouri delegation at first casting its 22 votes for Gen.

Grant, but afterwards changing them to Mr. Lincoln, giving him the total vote of the Convention506on

Nominations for the Vice Presidency being next in order, Mr. Lyman Tremaine, of New York, an old time

Democrat, nominated Daniel S. Dickinson, another old time Democrat and a very distinguished citizen of that

State. In his nominating speech Mr. Tremaine again emphasized that this Convention was a Union, and not a

'It was well said by the temporary and by the permanent Chairman, that we meet not here as Republicans. If

we do, I have no place in this Convention; but, like Daniel S. Dickinson, when the first gun was fired on

Sumter, I felt that I should prove false to my revolutionary ancestry if I could have hesitated to cast partisan

ties to the breeze, and rally around the flag of the Union for the preservation of the Government.'

The Indiana delegation nominated Andrew Johnson, also a Democrat, and the nomination was seconded by

In the earlier proceedings of the Convention there had seemed a disposition to exclude the Tennessee

delegation, and Parson Brownlow, an old line Whig, being called on for a speech, evidenced in the course of

his remarks the small part which partisan considerations were permitted to play in the purposes and

'There need be no detaining this Convention for two days in discussions of various kinds, and the idea I

suggest to you as an inducement not to exclude our delegation is, that we may take it into our heads, before

the thing is over, to present a candidate from that State in rebellion, for the second office in the gift of the

people. We have a man down there whom it has been my good luck and bad fortune to fight untiringly and

perseveringly for the past twentyfive yearsAndrew Johnson. For the first time, in the Providence of God,

three years ago we got together on the same platform, and we are fighting the devil, Tom Walker, and Jeff.

'Mr. President, we but represent the sentiment of those who sent here the delegation from Tennessee, when

we announce that if no one else had made the nomination of Andrew Johnson, which is now before the

Convention, it would have been our duty to make it by one of our own delegation. That citizen, known,

honored, distinguished, has been presented to this Convention for the second place in the gift of the American

people. It needs not that I should add words of commendation of him here. From the time he rose in the

Senate of the United States, where he then was, on the 17th day of December, 1860, and met the leaders of

treason face to face, and denounced them there, and declared that the laws of the country must and should be

enforced, for which he was hanged in a effigy in the City of Memphis, in his own State, by the hands of a

negro slave, and burned in effigy, I know not in how many places throughout that portion of the

countryfrom that time, on during the residue of that session of the Senate until he returned to Tennessee

after the firing upon Fort Sumter, when he was mobbed in the City of Lynchburg, Virginiaon through the

memorable canvass that followed in Tennessee, till he passed through Cumberland Gap on his way North to

invoke the aid of the Government for his peoplehis position of determined and undying hostility to this

rebellion that now ravages the land, has been so well known that it is a part of the household knowledge of

many loyal families in the country. * * * When he sees your resolutions that you have adopted here by

acclamation, he will respond to them as his sentiments, and I pledge myself by all that I have to pledge before

such an assemblage as this, that whether he be elected to this high place, or whether he retire to private life,

he will adhere to those sentiments, and to the doctrine of those resolutions, as long as his reason remains

Two ballots were taken on the nomination for Vice President. Mr. Johnson, whose nomination was known to

be desired by Mr. Lincoln and his friends because of his prominence as a Southern Democrat and an

influential supporter of the Union cause in his State, received 200 votes on the first ballot, and 404 on the

secondthe delegations of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,

Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, West Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Nevada, voting solidly

for himMassachusetts, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Wisconsin and Minnesota, only, being divided.

Thus a Republican and a Democrat were made the nominees of the Convention, and its nonpartisan

character found further expression in the first three Resolutions of the Platform adopted, which were as

Resolved, 1st. That it is the highest duty of every American citizen to maintain against all their enemies the

integrity of the Union and the paramount authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that

laying aside ALL DIFFERENCES OF POLITICAL OPINION, we pledge ourselves as Union men, animated

by a common sentiment and aiming at a common object, to do everything in our power to aid the

Government in quelling by force of arms the rebellion now raging against its authority, and in bringing to the

2nd. That we approve the determination of the Government of the United States not to compromise with

Rebels, or to offer them any terms of peace, except such as may be based upon an unconditional surrender of

their hostility and a return to their just allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that

we call upon the Government to maintain their position, and to prosecute the war with the utmost possible

vigor to the complete suppression of the Rebellion, in full reliance upon the selfsacrificing patriotism, the

heroic valor and the undying devotion of the American people to their country and its free institutions.

3rd. That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength, of this Rebellion, and as it must be,

always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety

demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and

maintain the acts and proclamation by which the Government in its own defense, has aimed a death blow at

this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the

people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of slavery

So there seems to be good ground for saying that this was in no sense a partisan Convention, but, on the

contrary, that it was a Convention of the loyal people of the Northern and Border States, of all parties, who

were ready to lay aside party creeds and partisan considerations, the better to make common cause for the

Before the war, Mr. Johnson had been a Democratic Senator from Tennessee, and during the war, a

gentleman of great influence in support of the Union cause. So pronounced and effective had been his loyalty

that Mr. Lincoln appointed him a Brigadier General and Military Governor of Tennessee, to accept which he

resigned his seat in the Senate, and so judicious and successful had been his administration of that office in

behalf of the Union cause and of Union men, that Tennessee was the first of the revolted States to be

So it may be said of Mr. Johnson that he was a persistent and consistent Union Democrat of the old

schoolfor war so long as war might be necessary to the preservation of the Unionfor peace when the

war was ended by the abandonment of the struggle by the insurgentsand for the restoration of the Union on

terms consistent with then existing conditionswithout slavery, which was deadand the return of the

people of the South to their loyalty to and support of the Government without debasing exactionsafter they

had laid down their arms. Aggressively radical so long as the people of the South continued in rebellion, he

was considerate and merciful so soon as they yielded themselves to the authority of law and of the Union.

Like Mr. Lincoln, he opposed the idea strenuously advanced by Sumner, and Stevens, and that wing of the

Republican party which they led, that the States in rebellion had committed suicide and were therefore dead

and without rights, or entitled to consideration, even, in any proposition that might be adopted for their

This record very effectually disposes of the criticisms of Mr. Johnson's course, so common after he came to

the Presidency and growing out of his disagreements with the extremists of Congress, that he had deserted

and betrayed the Republican party after it had elected him to the Vice Presidency and thus made him Mr.

Lincoln's immediate successorthe facts of history showing that neither Mr. Lincoln nor Mr. Johnson were

elected by the Republican party as Republicans, nor by the Democratic party as Democrats, but by a union of

all parties of the North distinctively as a Union party and on a Union ticket and platform for the preservation

of the Union and the destruction of slaveryand when those purposes were accomplished, the war ended

and the Union party disbanded and was never heard of again. Mr. Lincoln, had he lived, would doubtless

have still been a Republican, as Mr. Johnson was still a Democrat, as before the warthe purpose of that war

and of the Convention that nominated him having been accomplishedand under no obligations, especially

of a partisan character, to adopt or promote the partisan purposes relative to reconstruction or otherwise, that

As stated. Mr. .Johnson had, during the later years of the war, been acting as Military Governor of Tennessee,

of which State he had been a citizen nearly all his life. His administration had been so efficient that

Tennessee was practically restored to the Union at the close of the War, and so satisfactory to the loyal

people of the country, that though an old line Democrat and a Southern man, Mr. Johnson's nomination by

the National Convention for Vice President on the ticket with Mr. Lincoln for President, was, as has been

shown, logical and consistent. Though a pronounced State Rights Democrat and a citizen of a Southern State

in rebellion, he regarded himself as a citizen of the United States, to which he owed his first allegiance. State

Rights meant to him, the rights of the States IN the Union, and not OUT of the Union.

In evidence of the confidence and esteem in which Mr. Johnson was generally held by those who knew him

and knew of the valuable services he had rendered the cause of the Union, the following letter from Mr.

Stanton, then secretary of War under Mr. Lincoln, is here reproduced. It was written to Mr. Johnson on his

tender to the War Office of his resignation of the Military Governorship of Tennessee to accept the office of

Sir:This Department has accepted your resignation as Brigadier General and Military Governor of

Tennessee. Permit me on this occasion to tender to you the sincere thanks of this Department for your

patriotic and able services during the eventful period through which you have exercised the highest trust

committed to your charge. In one of the darkest hours of the great struggle for National existence, against

rebellious foes, the Government called you from the comparatively safe and easy duties of civil life to place

you in front of the enemy and in a position of personal toil and danger, perhaps more hazardous than was

encountered by any citizen or military officer of the United States. With patriotic promptness you assumed

the post, and maintained it under circumstances of unparalleled trial, until recent events have brought safety

and deliverance to your State and to the integrity of the Constitutional Union, for which you so long and so

gallantly periled all that is dear to man on earth. That you may be spared to enjoy the new honors and

perform the high duties to which you have been called by the people of the United States, is the sincere wish

of one who in every official and personal relation has found you worthy of the confidence of the Government

Mr. Johnson succeeded to the Presidential office on the death of Mr. Lincoln, April 15th, 1865. The

conditions of the time were extraordinary. The war, so far as operations in the field were concerned, was at an

end. The armies of the rebellion had been vanquished and practically disbanded. The States lately in revolt

were prostrate at the feet of the conqueror, powerless for further resistance. But the general rejoicing over the

happy termination of the strife had been inexpressibly saddened by the brutal assassination of the President

who had so wisely and successfully conducted his great office and administered all its powers to the

attainment of that happy result, and it was not unnatural or strange that the shocking event should greatly

reinflame the passions of the strife that the joys of peace had at last well nigh laid.

It was an especial misfortune that he who had so wisely and safely conducted the Nation through the conflict

of arms and had foreshadowed his beneficent measures of peace and the restoration of the shattered Republic,

was taken away as he and the Nation stood at last at the open door of successful rehabilitation on a broader

and grander basis than had ever been reached in all previous efforts of man at Nation building. From day to

day he had watched, with his hand on the keyboard, the development and trend of events. They had resulted

as he had planned, and he had become the most conspicuous, the best loved, and the most masterful of living

man in the control of the future. In his death the Union lost its most sagacious and best trusted leader, and, the

It was under these circumstances that Mr. Johnson came to the Presidency as Mr. Lincoln's

successorwithout a moment of warning or an hour of preparation for the discharge of the crushing

Actuated, doubtless, and not unnaturally, by feelings of resentment over the manner and circumstances of Mr.

Lincoln's death, Mr. Johnson at first gave expression to a spirit of hostility toward the leaders of the rebellion,

and foreshadowed a somewhat rigorous policy in his methods of Reconstruction in accordance with the views

of the leaders of the Republican party in Congress who had differed with Mr. Lincoln on that subject; but

later on, under the advice of his Cabinetnotably, it is understood, of Mr. Sewardand under the

responsibility of actionhis views became modified, till in time, it is not impossible, but by no means

certain, that he went even beyond the humane, natural and logical views and purposes of Mr. Lincoln in that

This did not comport with the purposes of the Congressional faction that had opposed Mr. Lincoln's plans,

which faction, under the pressure of the general indignation over his murder, quickly rose to the absolute

control of Congress. Mr. Lincoln no longer stood in their way, and Mr. Johnson was then comparatively

unknown to the great mass of the dominant party, and therefore at a corresponding disadvantage in the

controversy. He had risen step by step to his new position from the humblest walks of Southern life, and each

succeeding step to advancement had been made through personal conflicts such as few men in public life in

this or any other country had ever borne. It was not unnatural, therefore, that he should have faith in himself,

and in the superiority of his judgment, or little in that of othersand more especially when he was

approached by those who had opposed Mr. Lincoln's plans in an attitude of dictation, and with suggestions

and unsought advice as to the course he should pursue in the then absorbing question of the restoration of the

States lately in rebellionhimself a citizen of one of those States, and for the preservation of which, as a

As with Mr. Lincoln, so with Mr. Johnsonthe first thing to be done, or sought, was the restoration of the

Union by the return of the States in rebellion to their allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the country.

Mr. Lincoln, to use one of his characteristic Western phrases, had "blazed the way," and Mr. Johnson took up

that trail. A few weeks after his inauguration he issued a Proclamation outlining a plan for the reorganization

of the State of North Carolina. That paper was confessedly designed as a general plan and basis for Executive

action in the restoration of all the seceded States. Mr. Lincoln had, of course, foreseen that that subject would

come up very shortly, in the then condition of affairs in the South, and it had therefore been considered in his

later Cabinet meetings, as stated, more especially at the meeting immediately preceding his death, and a plan

very similar to that afterwards determined upon by Mr. Johnson, if not identically so, was at that meeting

finally adopted. That plan was set out in the North Carolina Proclamation, the essential features and general

character of which became so conspicuous a factor in the subsequent controversies between the President and

Whereas: The Fourth Section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution of the United States declares that the

United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect

each of them against invasion and domestic violence; and whereas, the President of the United States is, by

the Constitution, made CommanderinChief of the Army and Navy, as well as chief civil executive officer

of the United States, and is bound by solemn oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United

States, and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and whereas, the rebellion which has been waged

by a portion of the people of the United States against the properly constituted authority of the Government

thereof in the most violent and revolting form, but whose organized and armed forces have now been almost

entirely overcome has, in its revolutionary progress, deprived the people of the State of North Carolina of all

civil government: and whereas, it becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the obligations of

the United States to the people of North Carolina in securing them it, the enjoyment of a republican form of

Now, therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed upon me by the Constitution of the

United States, and for the purpose of enabling the loyal people of said State to organize a State Government;

whereby justice may be established, domestic tranquility insured, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United

States and CommanderinChief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do hereby appoint William W.

Holden Provisional Governor of the State of North Carolina, whose duty it shall be, at the earliest practicable

period, to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for convening it Convention,

composed of delegates to be chosen by that portion of the people of the said State who are loyal all to the

United States and no others, for the purpose of altering or amending the Constitution thereof; and with

authority to exercise, within the limits of said State, all the powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal

people of the State of North Carolina to restore said State to its constitutional relations to the Federal

Government, and to present such a republican form of State Government as will entitle the said State to the

guarantee of the United States therefor, and its people to protection by the United States against invasion,

insurrection and domestic violence: PROVIDED, that in any election that may be hereafter held for choosing

delegates to any State Convention as aforesaid, no person shall be qualified as an elector, or shall be eligible

as a member of such Convention, unless he shall have previously taken and subscribed to the oath of

amnesty, as set forth in the President's Proclamation of May 29th, A. D. 1865, and is a voter qualified as

prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the State of North Carolina in force immediately before the 20th of

May, A. D. 1861, the date of the socalled ordinance of secession; and the said Convention, when convened,

or the legislature that may be thereafter assembled, will prescribe the qualifications of electors, and the

eligibility of persons to hold office under the Constitution and laws of the Statea power the people of the

several States comprising the Federal Union have rightfully exercised from the origin of the Government to

FirstThat the Military Commander of the Department, and all officers in the Military and Naval service,

aid and assist the said Provisional Governor in carrying into effect this Proclamation, and they are enjoined to

abstain from, in any way, hindering, impeding, or discouraging the loyal people from the organization of a

SecondThat the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws of the United States, the administration

whereof belongs to the State Department, applicable to the geographical limits aforesaid.

ThirdThat the Secretary of the Treasury proceed to nominate for appointment assessors of taxes, and

collectors of customs and revenue, and such other officers of the Treasury Department as are authorized by

law, and put in execution the revenue laws of the United States within the provisional limits aforesaid. In

making appointments, the preference shall be given to qualified loyal persons residing in the districts where

their respective duties are to be performed. But if suitable residents of the district shall not be found, then

FourthThat the Postmaster General proceed to establish postoffices and post routes, and put into execution

the postal laws of the United States within the said State, giving to loyal residents the preference of

appointments: but if suitable residents are not found, then to appoint agents, etc., from other States.

FifthThat District Judges for the judicial districts in which North Carolina is included, proceed to hold

courts within said State, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Congress. The Attorney General will

instruct the proper officers to libel, and bring to judgment, confiscation and sale, property subject to

confiscation, and enforce the administration of justice within said State in all matters within the cognizance

SixthThat the Secretary of the Navy take possession of all public property belonging to the Navy

Department within said geographical limits, and put in operation all Acts of Congress in relation to naval

SeventhThat the Secretary of the Interior put in force all laws relating to the Interior Department

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this 29th day of May, in the year, of our Lord 1865, and of the Independence

North Carolina was the first of the revolted States to which this identical plan of reconstruction, or

reorganization, was applied by Mr. Johnson. Its application to the several States then lately in revolt, was

On this matter Mr. Johnson, himself, testifies in his communication to the Senate in 1867, relating to the

removal of Mr. Stanton, that "This grave subject (Reconstruction) had engaged the attention of Mr. Lincoln

in the last days of his life, and the plan according to which it was to be managed had been prepared and was

ready for adoption. A leading feature of that plan was that it was to be carried out by Executive authority. * *

* The first business, transacted in the Cabinet after I became President was this unfinished business of my

predecessor. A plan or scheme of reconstruction had been prepared for Mr. Lincoln by Mr. Stanton. It was

approved, and at the earliest moment practicable was applied, in the form of a proclamation, to the State of

North Carolina, and afterwards became the basis of action in turn for the other States."

Mr. Stanton also testified before the House Impeachment Committee of 1867, that he had "entertained no

doubt of the authority of the President to take measures for the reorganization of the rebel States on the plan

proposed, during the vacation of Congress, and agreed in the plan specified in the proclamation in the case of

In the first attempt to impeach the President, in 1867, Mr. Johnson's method of Reconstruction was the most

conspicuous feature of the prosecution. It was insisted by the extremists that it was a departure from Mr.

Lincoln's planan unwarranted assumption of authority by Mr. Johnsonthat its purpose was the

recognition of the people of the South as American citizens with the rights of such, and even as an act not far

removed from treason. In reference to this action of the President, General Grant was called before the

Question: I wish to know whether, at or about the time of the war being ended, you advised the President that

it was, in your judgment, best to extend a liberal policy towards the people of the South, and to restore as

speedily as possible the fraternal relations that existed prior to the war between the sections?

Answer: I know that immediately after the close of the rebellion there was a very fine feeling manifested in

Ques. I understood you to say that Mr. Lincoln had inaugurated a policy intended to restore these

Ans. I was present, I think, twice before the assassination of Mr. Lincoln, when a plan was read.

Ques. I want to know whether the plan adopted by Mr. Johnson was substantially the plan which had been

Ans. I should think so. I think that the very paper which I heard read twice while Mr. Lincoln was President,

In additional testimony that Mr. Johnson was endeavoring to carry out Mr. Lincoln's methods of

reconstruction, the following extracts from a speech by Gov. O. P. Morton, of Indiana, delivered at

An impression has gotten abroad in the North that Mr. Johnson has devised some new policy by which

improper facilities are granted for the restoration of the rebel States, and that he is presenting improperly and

unnecessarily hurrying forward the work of reconstruction, and that he is offering improper facilities for

restoring those who have been engaged in the rebellion to the possession of their civil and political rights.

It is one of my purposes here this evening to show that so far as his policy of amnesty and reconstruction is

concerned, he has absolutely presented nothing new, but that he has simply presented, and is simply

DECEMBER, 1863. Mr. Johnson's policy differs from Mr. Lincoln's in some restrictions it contains, which

Mr. Lincoln's did not contain. His plan of reconstruction is absolutely and simply that of Mr. Lincoln, nothing

more or less, with one difference only, that Mr. Lincoln required that onetenth of the people of the disloyal

States should be willing to embrace his plan of reconstruction, whereas Mr. Johnson says nothing about the

number; but, so far as it has been acted upon yet, it has been done by a number much greater than onetenth.

* * * Their plans of amnesty and reconstruction cannot be distinguished from each other except in the

particulars already mentioned, that Mr. Johnson proposed to restrict certain persons from taking the oath,

unless they have a special pardon from him, whom Mr. Lincoln permitted to come forward and take the oath

without it. * * * That was Mr. Lincoln's policy at the time he was nominated for reelection by the Union

Convention at Baltimore, last summer; and in that convention the party sustained him and strongly endorsed

his whole policy, of which this was a prominent part. MR. LINCOLN WAS TRIUMPHANTLY AND

In his last annual message to Congress, December, 1864, he again brings forward this same policy of his, and

Again, on the 12th of April, 1865, only two days before his death, he referred to and presented this policy of

amnesty and reconstruction. That speech may be called his last speech, his dying words to his people. It was

after Richmond had been evacuated. It was the day after they had received the news of Lee's surrender.

Washington City was illuminated. A large crowd came in front of the White House and Mr. Lincoln spoke to

them from one of the windows. He referred to the organization of Louisiana under his plan of amnesty and

reconstruction, and in speaking of it he gave the history of his policy. He said:

In my annual message of December, 1863, and accompanying the Proclamation, I presented a plan of

reconstruction, as the phrase goes, which I promised if adopted by any State, would be acceptable and

sustained by the Executive Government of this Nation. I distinctively stated that this was a plan which might

possibly be acceptable, and also distinctively protested that the Executive claimed no right to say when or

The new constitution of Louisiana, (said Mr. Lincoln) declaring emancipation for the whole State, practically

applies the Proclamation to that part previously exempted. It does not adopt apprenticeship for freed people,

and is silent, as it could not well be otherwise, about the admission of members to Congress. As it applied to

Louisiana, every member of the Cabinet approved the plan of the message. * * * Now, we find Mr. Lincoln,

just before his death; referring in warm and strong terms to his policy of amnesty and reconstruction, and

giving it his endorsement; giving to the world that which had never been given beforethe history of that

plan and policystating that it had been presented and endorsed by every member of that able and

distinguished Cabinet of 1863. Mr. Lincoln may be said to have died holding out to the Nation his policy of

amnesty and reconstruction. It was held out by him at the very time the rebels laid down their arms. Mr.

Lincoln died by the hand of an assassin and Mr. Johnson came into power. He took Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet as

he had left it and he took Mr. Lincoln's policy of amnesty and reconstruction as he had left it, and as he had

presented it to the world only two days before his death. MR. JOHNSON HAS HONESTLY AND

FAITHFULLY ATTEMPTED TO ADMINISTER THAT POLICY, which had been bequeathed by that man

around whose grave a whole world has gathered as mourners. I refer to these for the purpose of showing that

Mr. Johnson's policy is not a new one, but that he is simply carrying out a policy left to him by his lamented

predecessora policy that had been ENDORSED BY THE WHOLE NATION IN THE REELECTION OF

An impression has gotten abroad in the North that Mr. Johnson has devised some new policy by which

improper facilities are granted for the restoration of the rebel States and that he is presenting improperly and

unnecessarily hurrying forward the work of reconstruction, and that he is offering improper facilities for

restoring those who have been engaged in rebellion, to the possession of their civil and political rights. It is

one of my purposes here this evening to show that so far as his policy of amnesty and reconstruction is

concerned, he has absolutely presented nothing new, that he has simply presented, and is SIMPLY

The following are extracts from Mr. Johnson's Message to Congress, in December, 1865, on the

reassembling of that bodythe first session of the 39th Congress. Indicating, as it did, a policy of

reconstruction at variance with the views of the Congressional leaders, it may be said to have been another

incident out of which arose the conditions that finally, led to his impeachment. Mr. Johnson said:

I found the States suffering from the effects of a civil war. Resistance to the General Government appeared to

have exhausted itself. The United States had recovered possession of its forts and arsenals, and their armies

were in the occupation of every State which had attempted to secede. Whether the territory within the limits

of those States should be held as conquered territory, under Military authority emanating from the President

as head of the Army, was the first question that presented itself for decision. Military Governments,

established for an indefinite period, would have offered no security for the early suppression of discontent;

would have divided the people into the vanquishers and the vanquished; and would have envenomed hatred

rather than have restored affection. Once established, no precise limit to their continuance was conceivable.

They would have occasioned an incalculable and exhausting expense. * * * The powers of patronage and rule

which would have been exercised, under the President, over a vast and populous and naturally wealthy

region, are greater than, under a less extreme necessity, I should be willing to entrust to any one man. They

are such as, for myself, I should never, unless on occasion of great emergency, consent to exercise. The wilful

use of such powers, if continued through a period of years, would have endangered the purity of the General

Administration and the liberty of the States which remained loyal. * * * The policy of military rule over

conquered territory would have implied that the States whose inhabitants may have taken part in the rebellion

had, by the act of those inhabitants, ceased to exist. But the true theory is, that ALL PRETENDED ACTS OF

TREASON, nor screen the individual citizens who may have committed treason, any more than they can

make valid treaties, or engage in lawful commerce with any foreign power. The States attempting to secede

Reports had been circulated in the North, and found ready credence with a great many, that the people of the

South were as a rule, insubordinate and indisposed to accept the changed conditions there, and that

insubordination and turmoil were the rule. To ascertain the facts in this regard, during the later months of

1865 Mr. Johnson commissioned General Grant and others to make a tour of inspection and investigation of

the condition of affairs in the Southern States, especially as to their disposition with reference to the

acceptance by the people of those States, of their changed relations to the Union, and to report to him the

On the 10th of December, 1865, on motion of Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, the following resolution was

Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby requested to furnish the Senate

information of the state of that portion of the Union lately in rebellion; whether the rebellion has been

suppressed and the United States put again in possession of the States in which it existed; whether the United

States courts are restored, post offices reestablished and the revenue collected; and also whether the people

of those States have reorganized their State governments, and whether they are yielding obedience to the laws

and Government of the United States. And at the same time furnish to the Senate copies of such reports as he

may have received from such officers or agents appointed to visit that portion of the Union.

December 19th, 1865, in response to this resolution of the Senate, the President transmitted the following

In reply to the resolution adopted by the Senate on the 12th inst., I have the honor to state that the rebellion

waged by a portion of the people against the properly constituted authorities of the Government of the United

States has been suppressed; that the United States are in possession of every State in which the insurrection

existed; and that, as far as could be done, the courts of the United States have been restored, postoffices

reestablished, and steps taken to put into effective operation the revenue laws of the country. As the result of

the measures instituted by the Executive, with the view of inducing a resumption of the functions of the

States comprehended in the inquiry of the Senate, the people in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee, have reorganized their respective State

Governments, and 'are yielding their obedience to the laws and Government of the United States' with more

willingness and greater promptitude than under the circumstances could reasonably have been anticipated.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution, providing for the abolition of slavery forever within the limits

of the country, has been ratified by each one of those States, with the exception of Mississippi, from which no

official information has yet been received; and in nearly all of them measures have been adopted or are now

pending, to confer upon freedmen rights and privileges which are essential to their comfort, protection and

security. In Florida and Texas, the people are making considerable progress in restoring their State

Governments, and no doubt is entertained that they will at the Federal Government. In that portion of the

Union lately in rebellion, the aspect of affairs is more promising than, in view of all the circumstances, could

have been expected. The people throughout the entire South evince a laudable desire to renew their allegiance

to the Government, and to repair the devastations of war by a prompt and cheerful return to peaceful pursuits.

An abiding faith is entertained that their actions will conform to their professions, and that, in acknowledging

the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States, their loyalty will be given unreservedly to

the Government; whose leniency they cannot fail to appreciate, and whose fostering care will soon restore

them to a condition of prosperity. It is true, that in some of the States the demoralizing effects of war are to be

seen in occasional disorders; but these are local in character, not frequent in occurrence, and are really

disappearing as the authority of the civil law is extended and sustained. * * * From all the information in my

possession, and from that which I have recently derived from the most reliable authority, I am induced to

cherish the belief that sectional animosity is surely and rapidly merging itself into a spirit of nationality, and

that representation, connected with a properly adjusted system of taxation, will result in a harmonious

The following is General Grant's Report transmitted to Congress with the foregoing Message:

Sir:In reply to your note of the 16th inst., requesting a report from me giving such information as I may be

possessed, coming within the scope of the inquiries made by the Senate of the United States, in their

With your approval, and also that of the Honorable Secretary of War, I left Washington City on the 27th of

last month for the purpose of making a tour of inspection through some of the Southern States, or States

lately in rebellion, and to see what changes were necessary to be made in the disposition of the Military

forces of the country; how these forces could be reduced and expenses curtailed, etc., and to learn as far as

possible, the feelings and intentions of the citizens of those States towards the General Government.

The State of Virginia being so accessible to Washington City, and information from this quarter therefore

being readily obtained, I hastened through the State without conversing or meeting with any of its citizens. In

Raleigh, North Carolina, I spent one day; in Charleston, South Carolina, I spent two days; Savannah and

Augusta, Georgia, each one day. Both in traveling and while stopping, I saw much and conversed freely with

the citizens of those States, as well as with officers of the Army who have been stationed among them. The

I am satisfied that the mass of the thinking men of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good

faith. The questions which have heretofore divided the sentiments of the people of the two sectionsSlavery

and State Rights, or the right of a State to secede from the Unionthey regard as having been settled forever

by the highest tribunalarmsthat man can resort to. I was pleased to learn from the leading men whom I

met, that they not only accepted the decision arrived at, as final, but that now, when the smoke of battle has

cleared away, and time has been given for reflection, this decision has been a fortunate one for the whole

country, they receiving like benefits from it with those who opposed them in the field and in council.

Four years of war, during which law was executed only at the point of the bayonet throughout the States in

rebellion, have left the people possibly in a condition not to yield that ready obedience to civil authority the

American people have been in the habit of generally yielding. This would render the presence of small

garrisons throughout those States necessary until such time as labor returns to its proper channels and civil

authority is fully established. I did not meet anyone, either those holding places under the Government or

citizens of the Southern States, who think it practicable to withdraw the Military from the South at present.

The white and black mutually require the protection of the General Government. There is such universal

acquiescence in the authority of the General Government throughout the portions of the country visited by

me, that the mere presence of a military force, without regard to numbers, is sufficient to maintain order. The

good of the country and economy require that the force kept in the interior where there are many freedmen

(elsewhere in the Southern States than at forts upon the sea coast, no more is necessary,) should all be white

troops. The reasons for this are obvious without mentioning any of them. The presence of black troops, lately

slaves, demoralizes labor both by their advice and by furnishing in their camps a resort for freedmen for long

distances around. White troops generally excite no opposition, and therefore a small number of them can

maintain order in a given district. Colored troops must be kept in bodies sufficient to defend themselves. It is

not thinking men who would use violence towards any class of troops sent among them by the General

Government, but the ignorant in some cases might, and the late slave seems to be imbued with the idea that

the property of his late master should of right belong to him, or at least should have no protection from the

My observations lead me to the conclusion that the citizens of the Southern States are anxious to return to self

government within the Union as soon as possible; that while reconstructing they want and require protection

from the Government; that they are in earnest in wishing to do what they think is required by the

Government, not humiliating to them as citizens, and that if such is pointed out they would pursue it in good

faith. It is to be regretted that there cannot be a greater commingling at this time between the citizens of the

I did not give, the operation of the Freedmen's Bureau that attention I would have done if more time had been

at my disposal. Conversations on the subject, however, with officers connected with the Bureau, led me to

think that in some of the States its affairs have not been conducted with good judgment and economy, and

that the belief, widely spread among the freedmen of the Southern States, that the land of their former masters

will, at least in part, be divided among them, has come from the agents of this Bureau. This belief is seriously

interfering with the willingness of the freedmen to make contracts for the coming year. In some form the

Freedmen's Bureau is an absolute necessity until civil law is established and enforced, securing to the

freedmen their rights and full protection. At present, however, it is independent of the Military establishment

of the country, and seems to be operated by the different agents of the Bureau according to their individual

notions, every where. Gen. Howard, the able head of the Bureau, made friends by the just and fair

instructions and advice he gave; but the complaint in South Carolina was that, when he left, things went on as

before. Many, perhaps the majority of the agents of the Bureau, advised the freedmen that by their industry

they must expect to live. To this end they endeavor to secure employment for them: to see that both

contracting parties comply with their agreements. In some instances; I am sorry to say, the freedman's mind

does not seem to be disabused of the idea that a freedman has a right to live without care or provision for the

future. The effect of the belief in the division of lands is idleness and accumulation in camps, towns, and

cities. In such cases, I think it will be found that vice and disease will tend to the extermination, or great

reduction of the colored race. It cannot be expected that the opinions held by men at the South can be

changed in a day, and therefore the freedmen require for a few years not only laws to protect them, but the

fostering care of those who will give them good counsel and in whom they can rely.

This report was at once vigorously denounced in and out of Congress, by the extremists. Mr. Sumner

characterized it in the Senate, as a "whitewashing report." The standing of General Grant in the country at

The controlling element of the party which had elected Lincoln and Johnson, had acquiesced for a time in the

plan of reconstruction foreshadowed by Mr. Lincoln and adopted by Mr. Johnson, but during the summer of

1865, frictions developed between Mr. Johnson and those who on Mr. Lincoln's death had assumed the

leadership in the work of reconstruction and other matters of administration, came to take the opposite

ground, from the first occupied by Sumner and other extremists in Congressthat the States lately in

rebellion had destroyed themselves by their own act of war, and had thereby forfeited all the rights of

Statehood and were but conquered provinces, subject solely to the will of the conqueror.

From that point their ways parted and widened from month to month, till bitter hostility, political and

Mr. Johnson was practically unknown to the great mass of the people of the North till he succeeded to the

Presidency. He was in no sense regarded as or assumed to be the leader of the dominant party; while those

who on Mr. Lincoln's death became leaders of the dominant party in opposition to Mr. Johnson's

administration and policies, were widely known and of long public experience, and had correspondingly the

So, in the strife that ensued, as it became embittered with the lapse of time, Mr. Johnson was at great

disadvantage, and made little or no headway, but rather lost ground as the controversy progressed. His

moderate, conservative views, radically expressed, in regard to what should be the methods of reconstruction

and the restoration of the Union, found little favor with the mass of the veterans of the Union armies who had

but lately returned from the victorious fields of the South, their blood not yet cooled after the fury and heat of

the strife while to many, who had witnessed the horrors of war at a safe distance, with the cessation of

hostilities in the field, to which they had been only anxious spectators, became suddenly enthused over issues

that others had fought out in battle, and vigorously vicious towards Mr. Johnson for presuming to treat the

conquered people of the South as American citizens and entitled to the rights of such, after having laid down

their arms and peacefully returned to their homes and their respective callings.

This temper, permeating, as it did, the dominant party of practically every Northern State, was not

unstintingly reflected upon the National Capitol in the return to Congress of a large majority in both Houses,

of men who sympathized with and reflected back again upon their constituents the most extreme views as to

These views characterized the legislation of the time. Partisan rancor was unbridled, and found expression not

only in coercive legislation of various grades of severity, but in placing the Southern States generally under

almost absolute military control, and in the practical abrogation of the common rights of American

Quite every act of this sort of legislation was passed over the official protest of the President, and each of

these protests seemed but to add emphasis to each succeeding act of Congress in that line, till it seemed that

there could be no end to the strife, so long as Mr. Johnson remained in the Presidential office.

The ostensible basis of the disagreement which in a few months after the accession of Mr. Johnson to the

Presidency began to develop between himself and the Republican leaders in Congress, was the plan of

reconstruction put in operation by him during the recess of Congress that year, 1865, and outlined in his

North Carolina Proclamation. It availed not, that that plan had been adopted originally by Mr. Lincoln a few

days before his deaththat it had been concurred in by his entire Cabinet and would undoubtedly have been

carried out successfully by him had he lived that plan was made the ground of criticism of Mr. Johnson by the

extreme party element in control of Congress, which persistently accused him of having abandoned the plan

initiated by Mr. Lincoln, and of setting up another of his own, for purely personal and ambitious purposes,

Mr. Johnson may have been opinionated and headstrong, a characteristic of a great many people of strong

convictions of duty and purpose; while the overwhelming numerical strength of the dominant party in and out

of Congress made it seemingly indifferent, reckless and inconsiderate of the convictions, as of the rights and

prerogatives of the Chief Executive treating him more as a clerk whose sole duty it was to register without

That Mr. Lincoln, had he lived, would have pursued much the same policy of reconstruction, is clearly

indicated by the established fact that he had determined to adopt precisely the initial measures thereto which

Mr. Johnson did inaugurate and attempt to carry out. But Mr. Lincoln's superior ability in statecraft, his rare

tact and knowledge of men, and his capacity for moulding and directing public opinion, seeming to follow

where he actually led, would doubtless have secured a more favorable result. And more than all else, it can

scarcely be doubted, that the unbounded confidence of the people in his patriotism and capacity to direct

public affairs, would have enabled him to dictate terms of reconstruction strictly on the lines he had marked

out, and would have commanded the general support of the country, regardless of partisan divisions,

notwithstanding the well known fact that at the time of his death there were unmistakable indications of

alienation from him of the extreme element of his party because of his conservative views as to the proper

Meantime, in the effort to hamper the President, as far as it was possible for Congress to do, the

TenureofOffice Act was passed, early in 1867. The ostensible purpose of that Act was to restrict the

authority of the President in the selection of his Cabinet advisers, and his power over appointments generally.

Its specific purpose, at least so far as the House of Representatives was concerned, and measurably so in the

Senate, was to prevent his removal of the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, with the manifest if not avowed

intent, as the sequel shows, to make that Secretary not only independent of his chief, but also to make him the

immediate instrument of Congress in whatever disposition of the Army, or of military affairs generally

relating to the government of the Southern States, the majority of Congress might dictate. In a word, the

Congress, in that Act, virtually assumed, or attempted to assume, that control of the Army which the

The first effort to impeach the President, in 1867, was based upon a general accusation of high crimes and

misdemeanors without literal specification. The second, in 1868, was based upon his alleged violation of the

While it is undoubted, as already shown, that Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson were in accord as to the methods

to be adopted for the restoration of the revolted States, it was Mr. Johnson's misfortune that he had not Mr.

Lincoln's capacity for so great and so peculiar a task; though a gentleman of proven patriotism, ability, of a

kindly, genial nature, and with record of valuable public service. Hampered by his lack of political finesse

and intricate knowledge of statecraft, and in view of the conditions of that time, and the people with whom

he had to deal, it was obvious from the outset that the result of the controversy could hardly be otherwise than

disastrous to him. Mr. Lincoln would undoubtedly have been met by the same character of opposition, and

from the same source. But there would have been the appearance at least of mutual concession, and while the

APPEARANCE of concession would have been on Mr. Lincoln's side, the actual concession, so far as

Mr. Johnson was a Democrat of pronounced type and profound convictions, and in no sense did he depart

from his faith. He belonged to the school of Jackson and Jefferson. He had not the electric intuitions and

impetuous will of the former, nor the culture and genius of the latter. He adhered more religiously to the letter

of the Constitution than either. To him it was the one law of supreme obligation, that never ceased its

guarantees. As fittingly expressed by one of his Counsel, Mr. Groesbeck, in the trial: "He was not learned and

scholarlynot a man of many ideas or of much speculationbut the Constitution had been the study of his

life, and by a law of the mind he was only the truer to that which he did know."

As had Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Johnson keenly appreciated the importance of the people of the South returning at

once to the Union, free and independent American citizens, clothed with all the rights, privileges and

obligations common to such. In his Cabinet Councils, and to a degree supreme in that board sat William H.

Seward, as he had throughout Mr. Lincoln's administration, than whom the Republic has produced no wiser,

more sagacious, or patriotic statesman. He gave the subject his intense devotion in the maturity of his great

There too, sat Secretary Welles, another of Mr. Lincoln's advisers, and a devoted friend of the Constitution

and the sanctity of the Union. Each of these men, thoroughly patriotic, and efficient, and untiring in the

administration of their respective Departments, had commenced with the deluge of blood, and they now

hoped to crown their official careers by a triumphant peace that would Honor their lives and glorify the

Nation. These men had a salutary influence over Mr. Johnson, and greatly modified the asperities of his

Mr. Johnson believed, as did Mr. Lincoln, that the revolted States were still States of the Unionthat all the

pretended acts of secession were null and void, and that the loyal people therein had the right to reconstruct

their State Governments on the basis proposed to them first by Mr. Lincoln, and after him by Mr. Johnson,

It was upon this question that parties divided during the reconstruction period. Mr. Lincoln, foreseeing danger

in such a division, was anxious to bring those States into such relation that the people generally would

consider them as virtually in the Union, without reference to the abstract question. It was with this view,

undoubtedly, that he advocated the admission of Members and Senators whenever onetenth of the voting

population of 1860 should organize State Governments and ask for readmission. He would not only not

countenance, but repelled the doctrine of "State Suicide," as it was called, and which came to characterize the

It is true, that on many occasions Mr. Johnson charged that the Congress was only a Congress of part of the

States, and that its acts were therefore without validity. Yet he continued to execute those laws, and what to

him was a very unpleasant duty, the law which set aside the State Governments organized under his own

direction, so that notwithstanding his violent denunciations of the acts of Congress, and his personal opinions,

he did not presume to act upon them. Angry and undignified language was uttered on both sides. Many of his

speeches were violent and in bad taste and temper. So were a great many speeches uttered by senators and

It is therefore but repeating recorded history to say that Mr. Johnson was earnestly seeking to carry out Mr.

Lincoln's plan of reconstruction, which was upon consultation with his entire Cabinet, more especially with

Mr. Stanton, adopted by him as the basis for the restoration of the revolted States.

Yet, with these facts of record, that action was afterwards assailed by the Republican leaders in and out of

Congress, who assumed to have become Mr. Lincoln's executors in the work of reconstruction, as not only an

abandonment of the plan instituted by him, but a surrender of the issues fought out and the results

accomplished by the war just closed notwithstanding very many of these critics of Mr. Johnson had but a few

months before criticised Mr. Lincoln with quite equal severity for his suggestion of this same method of

Nor will it suffice to say that, though professing submission and loyalty, the people of the South were still

hostile to the Union, and that there was no safety there for Union men. It is true that there came to be violence

and disorder there upon the rejection by Congress of Mr. Johnson's plan of restoration.

These were the inevitable results of the conditions. There would also have been disorder and violence in the

North and to a far greater degree, had the results of the war been reversedan arbitrary and tyrannical

system of restoration insisted uponthe established order of things destroyed homes broken up the people

impoverished, and hordes of unscrupulous adventurers swarmed up from the South and overrun the country

in pursuit of schemes of political chicanery and personal ambition, peculation and plunder, as was the South

But when the fight was on, an overwhelmingly partisan House, as a last resort, in the hope of at once ending,

by removal, all opposition on the part of the President to the views and aims of the dominant party in

Congress, resorted to the first project of impeachment set out in the succeeding chapter.

The initiation of formal proceedings for the impeachment and removal of President Johnson occurred in the

House of Representatives on January 7th, 1867, in the introduction of three separate resolutions for his

impeachment, by Messrs. Loan and Kelso, of Missouri, and Mr. Ashley of Ohio. As Mr. Ashley's Resolution

was the only one acted on by the House, only the proceedings had thereon are here given, as follows:

Mr. Speaker:I rise to perform a painful but, nevertheless, to me, an imperative duty; a duty which I think

ought not longer to be postponed, and which cannot, without criminality on our part, be neglected. I had

hoped, sir, that this duty would have devolved upon an older and more experienced member of this House

than myself. Prior to our adjournment I asked a number of gentlemen to offer the resolution which I

Confident, sir, that the loyal people of this country demand the adoption of some such proposition as I am

about to submit, I am determined that no effort on my part shall be wanting to see that their expectations are

not disappointed. * * * On my responsibility as a Representative, and in the presence of this House, and

before the American people, I charge Andrew Johnson, Vice President and acting President of the United

States, with the commission of acts which in contemplation of the Constitution, are high crimes and

misdemeanors, for which, in my judgment, he ought to be impeached. I therefore submit the following:

I do impeach Andrew Johnson, Vice President and acting President of the United States, of high crimes and

In that he has corruptly interfered in elections, and committed acts which, in contemplation of the

BE IT RESOLVED, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and they are hereby, authorized to inquire into

the official conduct of Andrew Johnson, Vice President of the United States, discharging the powers and

duties of the office of President of the United States, and to report to this House, whether, in their opinion, the

said Andrew Johnson, while in said office, has been guilty of acts which are designed or calculated to

overthrow, subvert, or corrupt the Government of the United States, or any department or office thereof; and

whether the said Andrew Johnson has been guilty of any act, or has conspired with others to do acts, which,

in contemplation of the Constitution, are high crimes and misdemeanors, requiring the interposition of the

constitutional power of this House; and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers, and

The question was taken on agreeing to the Resolution; and it was decided in the affirmativeyeas 107, nays

On the 2nd of March, 1867, the subject of impeachment again came up in the House, and the following

Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, (Rep.)I am directed by the Committee on the Judiciary to present a report relative to

Mr. Eldridge, (Dem.)Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of order: I see by the clock that it is almost

three o'clock in the morning; and I believe this is the Sabbath day. I think we should not do any more

The Speaker.This, in parliamentary view, is Saturday. The clerk will read the report submitted by the

The Committee on the Judiciary, charged by the House with examination of certain allegations, of high

crimes and misdemeanors against the President of the United States, submit the following report:

On the 7th day of January, 1867, the House, on the motion of the Hon. James M. Ashley, a Representative

The duty imposed upon this committee by this action of the House, was of the highest and gravest character.

No committee during the entire history of the Government, has ever been charged with a more important

trust. The responsibility which it imposed was of oppressive weight, and of a most unpleasant nature. Gladly

would the committee have escaped from the arduous labor imposed upon it by the Resolution of the House;

but once imposed, prompt, deliberate, and faithful action, with a view to correct results, became its duty, and

Soon after the adoption of the Resolution by the House, Hon. James M. Ashley communicated to the

committee, in support of his charges against the President of the United States, such facts as were in his

possession, and the investigation was proceeded with, and has been continued almost without, a day's

interruption. A large number of witnesses have been examined, many documents collected, and everything

done which could be done to reach a conclusion of the case. But the investigation covers a broad field,

embraces many novel, interesting, and important questions, and involves a multitude of facts, while most of

the witnesses are distant from the Capital, owing to which the committee, in view of the magnitude of the

interests involved in its action, have not been able to conclude its labors, and is not therefore prepared to

submit a definite and final report. If the investigation had even approached completeness, the committee

would not feel authorized to present the result of the House at this late period of the session, unless the

charges had been so entirely negative as to admit of no discussion, which, in the opinion of the committee, is

Certainly no affirmative report could be properly considered in the expiring hours of this Congress.

The committee not having fully investigated all the charges prepared against the President of the United

States, it is deemed inexpedient to submit any conclusion beyond the statement that sufficient testimony has

been brought to its notice to justify and demand a further prosecution of the investigation.

The testimony which the committee has taken will pass into the custody of the Clerk of the House, and can

go into the hands of such committee as may be charged with the duty of bringing this investigation to a close,

The committee regrets its inability definitely to dispose of the important subject committed to its charge, and

presents this report for its own justification, and for the additional purpose of notifying the succeeding

Congress of the incompleteness of its labors, and that they should be completed.

James F. Wilson, Chairman. Francis Thomas, D. Morris, F. E. Woodbridge, George S. Boutwell, Thomas

Mr. Ancona, the only Democrat on the committee, presented a minority report, as follows:

The subscriber, one of the Judiciary Committee, to which was referred by the House the inquiry into the

official conduct of His Excellency, the President of the United States, with a view to his impeachment upon

certain charges made by Hon. James M. Ashley, begs leave to submit the following report:

The Committee refuses to allow a Report to be made giving to the House at this time upon grounds which are

no doubt satisfactory to themselves; therefore, I cannot report the evidence upon which my conclusion is

based, which I would gladly do did the Committee deem it expedient. The examination of witnesses and the

records was commenced, as appears by the majority report, about the time of the reference, towit: on the 7th

day of January, 1867, and continued daily. A large number of witnesses has been examined, and everything

done that could be, to bring the case to a close, as appears by the majority report: and the majority have come

to the conclusion "that sufficient testimony had been brought to its notice to justify and demand a further

prosecution of the investigation." I have carefully examined all the evidence in the case, and do report that

there is not one particle of evidence to sustain any of the charges which the House charged the Committee to

investigate, and that the case is wholly without a particle of evidence upon which impeachment could be

founded, and that with all the effort that has been made, and the mass of evidence that has been taken; the

case is entirely void of proof. I furthermore report that the most of the testimony that has been taken is of a

In view of this conclusion I can see no good in a continuation of the investigation. I am convinced that all the

proof that can be produced has been before the Committee, as no pains have been spared to give the case a

full investigation. Why, then, keep the country in a feverish state of excitement upon this question any longer,

as it is sure to end, in my opinion, in a complete vindication of the President, if justice be done him by the

This session of the House, and with it the ThirtyNinth Congress, ended a few hours later, the legislative day

continuing till twelve o'clock, noon, on Sunday, March 3rd. The House adjourned sine die at that hour, when

The first session of the Fortieth Congress began on Monday, March 4th, 1867, and on the 7th, in the House of

Representatives, Mr. Ashley (Rep.) offered the following Preamble and Resolutions:

Whereas the House of Representatives of the ThirtyNinth Congress adopted, on the 7th of January, 1867, a

Resolution authorizing an inquiry into certain charges preferred against the President of the United States;

and whereas the Judiciary Committee, to whom said Resolution and charges were referred, with authority to

investigate the same, were unable for want of time, to complete said investigation before the expiration of the

ThirtyNinth Congress; and whereas in the report submitted by said Judiciary Committee on the 2nd of

March they declare that the evidence taken is of such a character as to justify and demand a continuation of

Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the Judiciary Committee, when appointed, be, and they

are hereby, instructed to continue the investigation authorized in said Resolution of Jan. 7th, 1867, and that

they have power to send for persons and papers, and to administer the customary oath to witnesses; and that

the committee have authority to sit during the sessions of the House and during any recess which Congress or

Resolved, That the Speaker be requested to appoint the Committee on the Judiciary forthwith, and that the

Committee so appointed be directed to take charge of the testimony taken by the Committee of the last

Congress; and that said Committee have power to appoint a clerk at a compensation not to exceed six dollars

At the close of the debate on Mr. Ashley's Resolution, it was adopted without a division, its form being

Resolved, That the Committee on Judiciary be requested to report on the charges against the President as

aforesaid, on the first day of the meeting of the House after the recess hereafter to be determined.

Congress adjourned a few days later. It reassembled on the 3rd of July, and on the 11th the following

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the Resolution and Documents relative

to the Impeachment of the President, be directed to report the evidence at this session, with leave to make

That the impeachment enterprise was waning, and that its forces had received little encouragement during the

recess of the Congress that had just closed, was evidenced by the fact that there could not be mustered ayes

enough to put the resolution to a vote, and Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, moved the following substitute:

Resolved, That the Committee on Judiciary be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to have the usual

number of copies of the evidence taken by said committee relative to the Impeachment of the President,

printed and laid on the desks of Members of the House on the first day of the next Congress, whether

The Resolution was adopted by a vote of 85 to 48, whereupon Mr. Stevens dejectedly remarked that, "after

the vote which had been taken on this resolution, indicating the views of a majority of the House in regard to

it, I am willing to abandon it. I therefore move that the Resolution as amended be laid on the table," which

On the 15th of July, 1867, Mr. Farnsworth, (Rep.) of Illinois, offered the following resolution and demanded

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the question

of the Impeachment of the President of the United States, and that the testimony already taken by said

On the 25th of Nov. 1867, Mr. Boutwell (Rep.), on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, submitted the report of

the majority of that committee, of the testimony taken in behalf of the proposed impeachment of the

Mr. Wilson, submitted the report of the minority of the Committee (himself and Mr. Woodbridge), and

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the proposed

impeachment of the President of the United States, and that the subject be laid upon the table.

Mr. Marshall, on behalf of himself and Mr. Eldridge, the two Democratic members of the committee, stated

that though they had not signed the minority report submitted by Mr. Wilson, they joined in support of the

resolution submitted by him, and asked leave to introduce and have printed separate views.

This, the first session of the Fortieth Congress, then adjourned, Dec. 2nd, 1867.

The second session of the Fortieth Congress was begun on the same day, and on the 5th, the impeachment

question came up in its order in the House, on the resolution reported from the Judiciary Committee:

That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.

After a brief discussion of the order of business, the House adjourned for that day.

The debate was closed on the 6th, by Messrs. Boutwell and Wilson, the members of the Committee on the

Judiciary having Charge of the impeachment measure. The closing passages of Mr. Boutwell's speech were

What is our position today? Can this House and the Senate, with the knowledge they have of the Presidents

purposes and of the character of the men who surround him, give him the necessary power? (to remove

alleged dishonest officials.) Do they not feel that if he be alloyed such power these places will be given to

worse men? Hence, I say that with Mr. Johnson in office from this time until the 4th of March, 1869, there is

no remedy for these grievances. These are considerations why we should not hesitate to do that which justice

authorizes us to do if we believe that the President has been guilty of impeachable offenses.

Mr. Speaker, all rests here. To this House is given by the Constitution the sole power of impeachment; and

this power of impeachment furnishes the only means by which we can secure the execution of the laws, and

those of our fellow citizens who desire the administration of the law ought to sustain this House while it

executes that great law which is in its hands and which is nowhere else, while it performs a high and solemn

duty resting on it by which that man who has been the chief violator of law shall be removed, and without

which there can be no execution of the law any where. Therefore the whole responsibility, whatever it may

be, for the nonexecution of the laws of the country, is, (in the presence of these great facts) upon this House.

* * * I think that we can not do otherwise than believe, that he has disregarded that great injunction of the

Constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that there is but one remedy. The remedy is with

this House, and it is nowhere else. If we neglect or refuse to use our powers when the case arises demanding

decisive action, the Government ceases to be a Government of law and becomes a Government of men.

Mr. Wilson, Chairman of the Committee, closed the debate in the following remarks:

The gentleman from Massachusetts has remarked that the President may interfere with the next Presidential

election in the Southern States; that he may station soldiers at the voting places and overawe the loyal people

of those States, especially the colored vote: and we must, I suppose, guard against the possibility of this by

his impeachment and removal from office. This position, if I state it correctly, is startling. Are we to impeach

the President for what he may do in the future? Do our fears constitute in the President high crimes and

misdemeanors? Are we to wander beyond the record of this case and found our judgment on the possibilities

Sir, we must be guided by some rule in this grave proceedingsomething more certain than an impossibility

to arraign the President for a specific crimeand when the gentleman from Massachusetts, in commenting

on one of the alleged offenses of the President, that we could not arraign him for the specific crime, he

disclosed the weakness of the case we are now considering. If we cannot arraign the President for a specific

crime, for what are we to proceed against him? For a bundle of generalities such as we have in the volume of

testimony reported by the committee to the House in this case? If we cannot state upon paper a specific

At the close of his speech, Mr. Wilson moved to lay the subject of impeachment on the table, and the yeas

Several motions were then madeto adjourn, to adjourn to a day certain, etc.which with roll calls

The next day, Dec. 7th, the question again came up in its order, and after several unsuccessful attempts to

procure a vote on Mr. Wilson's motion to lay the Impeachment Resolution on the table, Mr. Wilson, by

agreement, withdrew his motion, and called for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution:

That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

So the resolution to impeach the President was rejected by the very emphatic vote of 67 to 108nearly two

So ended the first effort to impeach the Presidentthe first formal action to that end having been taken on

January 7, 1867, and the final vote at the close, and its abandonment, December 7, 1867.

For eleven months the overwhelming Republican majority of the House had been vigorously active in its

search for evidence of criminality on the part of the President that would warrant the basing of an

impeachment. No effort was left untriedno resource that promised a possible hope of successful

exploitation was neglected. Republican partisans were set to the work of sleuthhounds in the search for

testimony in maintenance of the charges preferred, and an ever ready partisan press teemed from the

beginning to the end of that time with animadversions upon Mr. Johnson's administration and denunciation of

his alleged desertion of Mr. Lincoln's plan of restoration, of treachery to the party that had elected him, and a

To be lukewarm in that controversy, or even to fail to join in the popular denunciation of Mr. Johnson was to

put one's self at once under suspicion with the great mass of the dominant party, and without the pale of its

For eleven months the country was kept in the throes of partisan turmoiland for what? Simply to depose a

President who had disappointed the partisan and personal expectations and schemes of a rule or ruin faction

which was able, under the peculiar conditions of the time, to subordinate to its purposes a large proportion of

The following are the material portions of the testimony taken by the House Committee on the Judiciary

under authority of the resolutions passed by the House of Representatives on March 7, 1867, for the

Eightynine witnesses were summoned before the committee. All of them were rigidly examined, and several

of them were called and examined the second and third times. Their testimony fills more than twelve hundred

The first witness was Gen. L. C. Baker, of the War Department. His testimony related principally to a certain

I wish you to state to the committee the contents, as nearly as you can, of a letter which you have in your

possession, written by Andrew Johnson, some time in the early part of 1864, to a Southern man, giving

information as to the troops about the Capitol and elsewhere, and advice to Jefferson Davis. State where that

Mr. Baker answered that he knew there was a letter of that kind, purporting to have been written by Andrew

Johnson, when he was acting Governor of Tennessee. That the letter was dated at Nashville and directed to

Jefferson Davis, and related to some declared policy that had been adopted by the Confederacythat the

letter was being used to secure an appointmentthat reference was made to troops, but nothing about

localities where stationed, or numbers, and nothing about shipment of armor, and that the letter was stolen

State whether the whole import of the letter written by Mr. Johnson, was not to turn the whole power which

AnswerNo. I did not have that opinion of the letter exactly. From what I recollect of it, the thing was that

he was making a proposition making suggestions as to what their policy should be.

Question by the Chairman.If there are any other letters that you have seen of Mr. Johnson's written by him

to any person connected with the Confederate Government, or proposing to change the Administration of the

Government in their favor after he became President, or anything of a public nature affecting the interests of

This constituted the substance of Gen. Baker's testimony. His examination was very lengthy, embracing more

of this character of testimony, and about pardon brokerage, and other alleged corrupt practicesall

evidencing a determination and expectation to fix upon Mr. Johnson a disposition to disloyalty and

corruption, both before and after his succession to the Presidency, but no such testimony was obtained.

A considerable portion of the investigation was devoted to Mr. Johnson's business and personal affairs, such

as could have no possible connection with or indicate implication in corrupt or disloyal practices of any sort.

A strenuous effort appears to have been made by the Committee throughout a long and searching

examination of witnesses, and constitutes a conspicuous feature of that investigation, to establish the charges

of corruption and disloyalty in the sale of public property, railways, etc., that had been constructed and

equipped, or seized and operated, by the Government in connection with its military operations in the South.

Such an accusation had been made with great pertinacity by Mr. Johnson's opponents, and was also then

Among the parties examined by the committee, were Mr. James and Mr. Burns, of Nashville, Tenn., and

Senator Fowler, of that State, and also the Secretary of war, Mr. Stanton. No facts whatever were elicited

The information obtained from Mr. Stanton, however, put an effectual estoppel to further investigation of the

charge of corrupt or disloyal disposal of public property by the President. The following are extracts from Mr.

Shortly after the surrender of the rebel armies, the attention of the War Department was directed to the proper

disposition to be made of the railroads and railroad stock throughout the rebel States which came into our

possession, either by capture or construction. It was the subject of a good deal of consultation and conference

between the Secretary of War and the Quartermaster General. It was the opinion of the Secretary of War that

it was wholly impracticable for the General Government to operate these roads under any system, and that it

would be greatly to the advantage of the country to make such disposition as would allow them, its speedily

as possible, to become what they were designed for channels of commerce and trade between the States, and

that any terms on which that could be done would be advantageous. This was especially the case in regard to

the Western and Southwestern roads, where it was said there were large amounts of cotton that would be

available to remove North, in exchange for supplies to go South, of which it was said they were greatly in

Ques.In case of the construction of a railroad by the Government, the Government furnishing the material

and the labor, what has been the custom of the Department in surrendering such roads to the companies

Ans.In all instances, I think such roads have been surrendered in the same manner as if they had been

constructed by the companies. That subject was talked of a good deal in conference between myself and the

Quartermaster General. My own views, that the great object on the part of the Government, was to get these

roads operated; and that to go into an inquiry as to the cost of construction, would be impracticable, either as

to the cost of construction or as to any certain rule of compensation, because many of them were constructed

under the pressure of war, and for temporary Purposes. The object of arriving at the cash value or equivalent

for the roads was not only impracticable, but really of very little practical interest in comparison with the

great end of having the channels of commerce in the rebel states opened and carried on, with a view of

getting out their produce, furnishing supplies, and getting commerce in its regular channels. In my own view,

that appeared to be the most, certain and most speedy system of reconstruction we could adopt, and that it

would tend more to establish harmony than any other thing that could be done by the Government. In view of

all this, and after the most deliberate consideration we could give it, it was the opinion of the Quartermaster

General and myselfcertainly my ownthat it would be impracticable to make any distinction: and so far

as I know, no distinction was made in any part of the country in reference to roads built by the Government

Suppose the Government, at his own expense, had constructed seventy miles of railroad in one of the rebel

States, and that, at the close of the war, a company should apply to the Executive Department of the

Government for a transfer of the road so constructed to it; by what authority or provision of law would

Executive Department be authorized to transfer the road so constructed to the company making the

I do not know of any act of Congress that directly, in terms, would authorize any such transfer; but regarding

the construction of the road, in time of war, simply as a means, or instrument, of carrying on war, when the

war was over I would consider it strictly proven and within the scope of the power of the General

Commanding, or especially of the President of the United States, as the CommanderinChief of the Army,

to render that instrument as available for peace purposes as possible. And inasmuch as the road would be

entirely useless unless it was operated, and it would be for the benefit and interest of the public, to have it

operated as speedily as possible, I think it would be in the interest of a wise discretion, and exercising proper

authority, to turn over that road to any company or individual who would operate it; for, in that way, he

would be applying the war material to the only available use to which it could be applied. * * * I would

regard the rolling stock as coming, to a certain extent, within the same principle. * * * No transfer of title was

at any time made, so far as I know, or could be made, but only possession turned over. When the military use

was no longer required, the railroads were turned over to their original owners, or their representatives, with

permission to use them. These railroads, their plant and track fixtures, real property, of which the military

authorities had only the possessory right and use, but the rolling stock and equipments, and iron not laid

down, were personal property, which, by capture, or purchase, or construction, belonged to the United States.

Sale could be made, and was made, of the personal property at values estimated by the proper officers. That

which constituted real estate, towit, the railroad track, fixtures, etc., the military authorities might abandon

altogether, or relinquish control and turn over possession to those who would make a beneficial use of it by

working the road. Being in the nature of real estate, no title of the Government or of other persons could be

divested and conveyed by military authority, but only the control relinquished and the use permitted during

the existence of military authority in the department where the roads were situated.

The trend of a large portion of the testimony of witnesses called by this committee to testify as to the charges

preferred against Mr. Johnson and relating to other allegations of the indictment, quite clearly indicated that

the charges were based solely upon common street rumor, invented and given currency in partisan

antagonism and for partisan purposes, and that the witnesses were called in the hope and expectation, on the

part of the majority of the House, of developing proof of disloyalty and corruption on the part of the

President, and, if not criminal connivance, at least, criminal knowledge of a conspiracy for the assassination

But these expectations and hopes, in all respects, were so utterly disappointed, that there was pathos, at least,

as the investigation was protracted from month to month, with no indication of the hoped for development, in

the despondent inquiry of Mr. Thaddeus Stevens to one of his colleagues of the Impeachment Committee, as

the inquest approached a close without results"Well, HAVE YOU GOT ANYTHING, ANYHOW?" It was

more an ejaculation of anger and disgust at failure, than a query of one seeking hoped for information.

Mr. Johnson's alleged violation of the act of Congress known as the TenureofOffice Act, constituted the

ostensible basis of his impeachment in 1868. As stated, it had been passed for the purpose of restricting the

power of the President over Executive appointments. That Act, therefore, becomes a very important and

conspicuous incident in the impeachment affair, as its alleged violation constituted the only material

The proceedings had on the passage of that bill are inserted at some length here, as a technical knowledge of

its history, character and purpose, is essential to a correct apprehension of the controversy that had arisen

The TenureofOffice bill was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Dec. 3rd, 1866, and on

the 5th was referred to the Committee on Retrenchment. On the 10th Mr. Edmunds, in the name of the

The joint select Committee on Retrenchment, to whom was referred the bill to regulate the tenure of offices,

have had the same under consideration, and have instructed me to report the bill back, with a

recommendation of certain amendments, which being adopted, the committee are of the opinion that the bill

ought to pass. I beg leave to say in connection with this report that we have reported this bill and these

amendments regulating removals from office and appointments to office so far as concerns officers whose

nominations require the confirmation of the Senate, and have adopted what appears to us to be a feasible

scheme in that respect, in no spirit of hostility to any party or administration whatever, but in what we

conceive to be the true Republican interest of the country, under all administrations, under the domination of

all parties in the growth which is before us in the future; and in that spirit I shall ask the attention of the

Senate to the bill when it comes to be considered. I move that the amendment be printed, and that the bill be

On the 10th of January, 1867, on motion of Mr. Edmunds, the bill was taken up for consideration. As the first

section of the bill was the only portion over which there was any serious controversy, or pertinent to this

That every person (excepting the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the

Interior, the Postmaster General, and the Attorney General), holding any civil office to which he has been

appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who shall hereafter be

appointed to any such office, and shall become duly qualified to act therein, is, and shall be, entitled to hold

such office until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified, except as herein

Mr. Howe objected to the exception of the Cabinet officers from the operation of the bill, and Mr. Edmunds

It did seem to the Committee, after a great deal of consultation and reflection, that it was right and just that

the Chief Executive of the Nation, in selecting these named Secretaries, who, by law, and by the practice of

the country, and officers analogous to whom by the practice of all other countries, are the confidential

advisers of the Executive respecting the administration of all his Departments, should be persons who were

personally agreeable to him, in whom he could place entire confidence and reliance, and that whenever it

should seem to him that the state of relations, between him and any of them had become such as to render this

relation of confidence and trust and personal esteem inharmonious, HE SHOULD IN SUCH CASE BE

SOME OTHER PERSON ACT IN HIS STEAD. We thought that so much discretion, so much confidence, so

much respect ought to be properly attributed to the Chief Magistrate of the Nation. It may happen that at

some particular timesome people may suppose that it has happened nowthe Chief Magistrate for the

time being ought not to be invested with such powers; but the Committee have recommended the adoption of

this rule respecting the tenureofoffice as a permanent and systematic, and as they believe, an appropriate

regulation of the Government for all administrations and for all time; and it did appear to them (whether the

reason may command itself to the Senate or not), that it was just to the Executive, and on the whole best for

the interest of the Nation, that he should be allowed during a recess of the Senate to change his confidential

advisers if it should appear to him to be fit, subject to that general responsibility which every officer must be

I prepared the original bill in this case, which contains in different words the exception contained in the

amendment reported by the Committee. I do not regard the exception as of any real practical consequence,

because I suppose if the President and any head of a Department should disagree so as to make their relations

unpleasant, and the President should signify a desire that the head of a Department retire from the Cabinet,

The Constitution imposes upon the President of the United States the duty of executing the laws; it does not

impose that duty upon the Secretaries. They are creatures of the law and not of the Constitution directly.

Some, and perhaps the greater part, of their functions are as advisers of the President and to aid him in

executing the laws in their several Departments. There are some duties that are specifically conferred upon

them by Congress. Their relation to the President, as has been well said by gentlemen, is that mostly of

confidential advisers. With the exception of the particular duties imposed upon them by law, and on the

Secretary of the Treasury more than on the others, they do nothing of their own motion, but act by order of

the President in discharging the particular duties of their office. * * * That being the peculiar condition of

affairs it has always been considered since the foundation of the Government, as a matter of course, as a

general rulethere may have been one or two exceptions, and I think there have been, but I am not very

positive on that pointthat the President might select such persons as he pleased to be members of his

Cabinet. Of course the confirmation of the Senate is necessary; but the general idea of the Senate has been,

whether they liked the men or not, to confirm them without any difficulty, because in executing the great and

varied interests of this great country it is exceedingly important that there should be the utmost harmony

The bill passed as reported and went to the House. That body amended it by making Cabinet officers

nonremovable by the President without the consent of the Senate, and sent the bill back to the Senate, when

It (the TenureofOffice bill) ought to have been passed, and probably would have been passed, long ago, if

a different condition of affairs had existed before. But when you propose to extend that principle to Cabinet

officers, a very different state of affairs arises, and different circumstances apply to this subject. Now I say,

that if a Cabinet officer should attempt to hold his office for a moment beyond the time when he retained the

entire confidence of the President, I would not vote to retain him, NOR WOULD I COMPEL THE

ENTIRELY TRUST, both personally and politically. It would be unwise to require him to administer the

Government without agents of his own choosing. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be unwise for the

Senate to engraft in this bill a provision that would enable a Cabinet officer to hold on to his office in

violation of the will of his Chief. * * * Suppose the personal relations between a Cabinet officer and the

President became so unpleasant that they could have no personal intercourse. The Senator from Wisconsin

(Mr. Howe), says in such a case the Cabinet officer would resign. Suppose he should hold on to his power

and positionwhat then? There is no power to remove him, and the President can have no intercourse with

him. Would you compel such a state of affairs? It seems to me that it would be unwise to do so. That the

Senate had no such purpose is shown by its vote twice to make this exception. That this provision does not

apply to the present case, is shown by the fact that its language is so framed as NOT TO APPLY TO THE

PRESENT PRESIDENT. * * * It would not prevent the present President from removing the present

A considerable number of Senators participated in the debate, which was able and exhaustive to an

exceptional degree, on both sides, and occupied several days in the various stages of the proceeding.

I do not rise to prolong the debate, but only to express the hope that the debate on this question may

terminatethat we may come to a vote. * * * While I should be glad to occupy some time in reply to some

things that have fallen in the course of this debate, I feel it to be due to the business of the Senate to abstain. I

hope the Senate will disagree to this amendment, (made by the House) and adhere to the bill as it stands.

The vote was then taken, and resulted in 17 for agreeing to the House amendment, and 28 against it.

The action of the Senate was reported to the House and Conference Committees were appointed by the two

On the 18th of February, the following substitute for the first section of the bill was reported by the

Committee of Conference and adopted by both Houses, and the bill went to the President:

Provided, That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the

Postmaster General and the Attorney General, shall hold their offices respectively FOR AND DURING THE

thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

On Monday, March 2nd, 1867, the President returned the bill to the Senate, in which house it had originated,

I have carefully examined the bill to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices. The material portion of the

"That every person holding any civil office to which he has been appointed by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate, and every person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office, and shall become

duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold such office until a successor shall have been

appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and duly qualified; and that the

Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster General, and the

Attorney General, shall hold their offices respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they

may have been appointed, and for one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and

These revisions are qualified by a reservation in the fourth section, "that nothing contained in the bill shall be

construed to extend the term of any office the duration of which is limited by law." In effect the bill provides

that the President shall not remove from their places any of the civil officers whose terms of service are not

limited by law without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States. The bill, in this respect,

conflicts, in my judgment, with the Constitution of the United States. The question, as Congress is well

aware, is by no means a new one. That the power of removal is constitutionally vested in the President of the

United States is a principle which has been not more distinctly declared by judicial authority and judicial

commentators than it has been uniformly practiced upon by the legislative and executive departments of the

Government. The question arose in the House of Representatives so early as the 16th day of June, 1789, on

the bill for establishing an executive department, denominated "The Department of Foreign Affairs." The first

clause of the bill, after recapitulating the functions of that officer and defining his duties, had these words:

"To be removable from office by the President of the United States." It was moved to strike out these words,

and the motion was sustained with great ability and vigor. It was insisted that the President could not

constitutionally exercise the power of removal exclusive of the Senate; that the Federalist so interpreted the

Constitution when arguing for its adoption by the several States; that the Constitution had nowhere given the

President power of removal, either expressly or by strong implication; but on the contrary, had distinctly

provided for removals from office by impeachment only. A construction which denied the power of removal

by the President was further maintained by arguments drawn from the danger of the abuse of the power; from

the supposed tendency of an exposure of public officers to capricious removal; to impair the efficiency of the

civil service; from the alleged injustice and hardship of displacing incumbents, dependent upon their official

stations, without sufficient consideration; from a supposed want of responsibility on the part the President,

and from an imagined defect of guarantees against a vicious President, who might incline to abuse the power.

On the other hand, an exclusive power of removal by the President was defended as a true exposition of the

text of the Constitution. It was maintained that there are certain causes for which persons ought to be

removed from office without being guilty of treason, bribery, or malfeasance, and that the nature of things

demands that it should be so. "Suppose," it was said, "a man becomes insane by the visitation of God, and is

likely to ruin our affairs; are the hands of Government to be confined front warding off the evil? Suppose a

person in office not possessing the talents he was judged to have at the time of the appointment, is the error

not to be corrected; suppose he acquire vicious habits and incurable indolence, or totally neglect the duties of

his office, which shall work mischief to the public welfare, is there no way to arrest the threatened danger?

Suppose he become odious and unpopular by reason of the measures he pursues, and this he may do without

committing any positive offense against the law, must he preserve his office in despite of the popular will?

Suppose him grasping for his own aggrandizement and the elevation of his connections by every means short

of the treason defined by the Constitution, hurrying your affairs to the precipice of destruction, endangering

your domestic tranquility, plundering you of the means of defense, alienating the affections of your allies, and

promoting the spirit of discord, must the tardy, tedious, desultory road, by way of impeachment, be traveled

to overtake the man who, barely confining himself within the letter of the law, is employed in drawing off the

vital principle of the Government?" The nature of things, the great objects of society, the express objects of

the Constitution itself require that this thing should be otherwise. To unite the Senate with the President "in

the exercise of the power" it was said, would involve us in the most serious difficulty. "Suppose a discovery

of any of these events should take place when the Senate is not in session, how is the remedy to be applied?

The evil could be avoided in no other way than by the Senate sitting always." In regard to the danger of the

power being abused if exercised by one man, it was said "that the danger is as great with respect to the

Senate, who are assembled from various parts of the continent, with different impressions and opinions;" that

such a body is more likely to misuse the power of removal than the man whom the united voice of America

calls to the presidential chair. As the nature of Government requires the power of removal, it was maintained

"that it should be exercised in this way by the hand capable of exerting itself with effect, and the power must

be conferred on the President by the Constitution as the executive officer of the Government." Mr. Madison,

whose adverse opinion in the Federalist had been relied upon by those who denied the exclusive power, now

participated in the debate. He declared that he had reviewed his former opinions, and he summed up the

"The Constitution affirms that the executive power is vested in the President. Are there exceptions to this

proposition? Yes, there are. The Constitution says that in appointing to office the Senate shall be associated

with the President, unless, in the case of inferior officers, when the law shall otherwise direct. Have we (that

is, Congress) a right to extend this exception? I believe not. If the Constitution has invested all executive

power in the President, I return to assert that the Legislature has no right to diminish or modify his executive

authority. The question now resolves itself into this: is the power of displacing an executive power? I

conceive that if any power whatever is in the Executive, it is in the power of appointing, overseeing, and

controlling those who execute the laws. If the Constitution had not qualified the power of the President in

appointing to office by associating the Senate with him in that business, would it not be clear that he would

have the right by virtue of his executive power to make such appointment? Should we be authorized, in

defiance of that clause in the Constitutionthe executive power shall be vested in the Presidentto unite

the Senate with the President in the appointment to office? I conceive not. It is admitted that we should not be

authorized to do this, I think it may be disputed whether we have a right to associate there in removing

persons from office, the one power being as much of an executive nature as the other; and the first is

authorized by being excepted out of the general rule established by the Constitution in these words: 'The

The question thus ably and exhaustively argued was decided by the House of Representatives, by a vote of 34

to 20, in favor of the principle that the executive power of removal is vested by the Constitution in the

Executive, and in the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice President. The question has often been raised in

subsequent times of high excitement, and the practice of the Government has nevertheless conformed in all

cases to the decision thus early made. * * * Chancellor Kent's remarks on the subject are as follows:

"On the first organization of the Government it was made a question whether the power of removal in case of

officers appointed to hold at pleasure resided nowhere but in the body which appointed, and, of course,

whether the consent of the Senate was not requisite to remove. This was the construction given to the

Constitution while it was pending for ratification before the State conventions by the author of the Federalist.

But the construction which was given to the Constitution by Congress, after great consideration and

discussion, was different. The words of the act (establishing the Treasury Department) are: 'And whenever

the same shall be removed from office by the President of the United States, or in any other case of vacancy

in the office, the assistant shall act.' This amounted to a legislative construction of the Constitution, and it has

ever since been acquiesced in and acted upon as decisive authority in the case. It applies equally to every

other officer of the Government appointed by the President, whose term of duration is not specially declared.

It is supported by the weighty reason that the subordinate officers in the executive department ought to hold

at the pleasure of the head of the Department, because he is invested generally with the executive authority,

and the participation in that authority by the Senate was an exception to a general principle and ought to be

taken strictly. The President is the great responsible officer for the faithful execution of the law, and the

power of removal was incidental to that duty, and might often be requisite to fulfill it."

Thus has the important question presented by this bill been settled, in the language of the late Daniel Webster

(who, while dissenting from it, admitted that it was settled), by construction, settled by precedent, settled by

The events of the last war furnished a practical confirmation of the wisdom of the Constitution as it has

hitherto been maintained in many of its parts, including that which is now the subject of consideration. When

the war broke out rebel enemies, traitors, abettors, and sympathizers were found in every department of the

Government, as well in the civil service as in the land and naval military service. They were found in

Congress and among the keepers of the Capitol, in foreign missions, in each and all of the Executive

Departments, in the judicial service, in the Post Office, and among the agents for conducting Indian affairs;

and upon probable suspicion they were promptly displaced by my predecessor, so far as they held their

offices under executive authority, and their duties were confided to new and loyal successors. No complaints

Having at an early period accepted the Constitution in regard to the executive office in the sense in which it

was interpreted with the concurrence of its founders, I have found no sufficient grounds in the arguments now

opposed to that construction or in any assumed necessity of the times for changing those opinions. For these

reasons I return the bill to the Senate, in which House it originated, for the further consideration of Congress,

which the Constitution prescribes. Insomuch as the several parts of the bill which I have not considered are

matters chiefly of detail, and are based altogether upon the theory of the Constitution from which I am

obliged to dissent, I have not thought it necessary to examine them with a view to make them an occasion of

distinct and special objections. Experience, I think, has shown that it is the easiest, as it is also the most

attractive, of studies to frame constitutions for the selfgovernment of free States and nations.

But I think experience has equally shown that it is the most difficult of all political labors to preserve and

maintain such free constitutions of self government when once happily established. I know no other way in

which they can be preserved and maintained except by a constant adherence to them through the various

vicissitudes of national existence, with such adaptations as may become necessary, always to be effected,

however, through the agencies and in the forms prescribed in the original constitutions themselves. Whenever

administration fails or seems to fail in securing any of the great ends for which Republican Government is

established, the proper course seems to be to renew the original spirit and forms of the Constitution itself.

The bill was promptly passed in both Houses over the President's veto and became a law.

As pertinent and incident to the history of this controversy, is the communication of the President notifying

The TenureofOffice Act did not pass without notice. Like other acts, it was sent to the President for

approval. As is my custom I submitted it to the consideration of my Cabinet for their advice whether I should

approve it or not. I was a grave question of constitutional law, in which I would of course rely mostly upon

the opinion of the Attorney General, and of Mr. Stanton, who had once been Attorney General. EVERY

UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All spoke without doubt or reservation; but MR. STANTON'S CONDEMNATION

OF THE LAW WAS THE MOST ELABORATE AND EMPHATIC. He referred to the Constitutional

provisions, the debates in Congress, especially to the speech of Mr. Buchanan when a Senator, to the

decisions of the Supreme Court, and to the usage from the beginning of the Government through every

successive administration, all concurring to establish the right of removal as vested in the President. To all

these he added the weight of his own deliberate judgment, and advised me that it was my duty to defend the

During the recess of Congress in the Summer of 1867, the President suspended Mr. Stanton from the War

Office and appointed Gen. Grant Secretary of War ad interim. Gen. Grant was then understood as supporting

the President in his controversy with Mr. Stanton, and promptly accepted the appointment, holding it until the

following December, when the change was duly reported to the Senate. The Senate refused to sanction Mr.

Stanton's suspension, and he consequently resumed his position of Secretary of War and retained it until the

close of the Impeachment trialthe Senate then, in effect, by rejecting the Impeachment, declaring that the

Very naturally, after Mr. Stanton's restoration to the War Office by the refusal of the Senate to sanction his

suspension, the relations between himself and the President were embittered and many efforts were made by

mutual friends to induce Mr. Stanton to resign. Conspicuous among these were Gen. Grant, the General of the

Army, and Gen. Sherman, the next in rank, as shown in the following note from Gen. Sherman to the

President; but a few weeks before the crisis came. It explains itself, as showing the relations then subsisting

I regretted, this morning, to say that I had agreed to go down to Annapolis, to spend Monday with Admiral

Porter. Gen. Grant has to leave for Richmond on Monday morning at 6 o'clock. At a conversation with the

General, after an interview wherein I offered to go with him on Monday morning to Mr. Stanton and say it

was our joint opinion that he should resign, it was found impossible by reason of his going to Richmond and

my going to Annapolis. The General proposed this course. He will tell you tomorrow and offer to go to Mr.

Stanton to say that for the good of the service of the country he ought to resignthis on Sunday. On

Monday, I will call on you, and if you think it necessary, I will do the samecall on Mr. Stanton and tell him

he should resign. If he will not, then it will be time to consider ulterior measures. In the meantime, it also

On Saturday, February 23, 1868, the day following the removal of Mr. Stanton, Mr. Johnson sent to the

Senate the name of Mr. Thomas Ewing, senior, of Ohio, as his successor. The Senate had adjourned for the

day when the President's Secretary reached the Capitol, between 12 and 1 o'clock, but the nomination was

formally communicated on the following Monday. Of this nomination, Mr. Blaine has written, that "no name

could have given better assurance of good intentions and upright conduct than that of Mr. Ewing. He was a

man of lofty character, of great eminence in his profession of the law, and with wide and varied experience in

public life. He had held high rank as a Senator in the Augustan period of the Senate's learning and eloquence,

and he had been one of the ablest members of the distinguished Cabinets organized by the only two

Presidents elected by the Whig Party. He had reached the ripe age of seventyeight years, but still in

complete possession of all his splendid faculties. He had voted for Mr. Lincoln at both elections, had been a

warm supporter of the contest for the Union, and was represented by his own blood on many of the great

Here was offered an opportunity for the settlement of the dispute over the War Office on fair and honorable

terms to all parties concerned. But that was not what the impeachers wanted. They wanted to get Mr. Johnson

out. They thought they had a pretext that they could sustain by making it a party question, and did not want a

settlement on any other termsso no attention was given to Mr. Ewing's nomination. It was ignored and the

Mr. Johnson's veto of the TenureofOffice Bill, and the passage of that bill over his veto, of course

intensified the antagonism between himself and Congress. He not unnaturally regarded that Act as an

infringement of the Executive function which it was his duty to his office and to himself to resent. The

culmination came upon his official notification to the Senate on February 21st, 1868, of his removal of Mr.

Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, and his appointment of Gen. Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary ad

Immediately on receipt of this notification, the Senate went into executive session, and the following

Whereas, The Senate have read and considered the communication of the President, stating that he had

removed Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, and had designated the Adjutant General of the Army to act as

Resolved, by the Senate of the United States, That under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the

President has no power to remove the Secretary of War and designate any other officer to perform the duties

The journal of the Senate shows that this Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

YeasMessrs. Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Harlan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of

Vermont, Morton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, Sprague, Stewart. Sumner. Thayer,

NaysMessrs. Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Hendricks, Patterson of Tennessee6.

Absent or not voting20. Note. (NoteIt is due to myself to say here, that the entry of my name in the

above vote, was incorrect. My distinct recollection is, that though present, I declined to vote, and from the

consideration mentioned. I was totally unaware of my name being recorded as voting on the proposition until

long after I left the Senate, when of course there was no opportunity to secure a correction of the journal.)

This was an extraordinary proceeding. A proposition to impeach the President had till recently been pending

in the House for nearly a year, and the ingenuity of the majority had been taxed to the utmost to find some

basis for an indictment upon which a successful impeachment might be possible. There is ground for the

suggestion that much was hoped for in that direction from the TenureofOffice Bill, at least so far as the

House was concerned. That hoped for opportunity had now comenor is it an unreasonable surmise, that

this very extraordinary action of the Senate was forced by outside as well as inside influences for the purpose

of testing the Senate, and committing it in advance and in anticipation of the preferment of another

As to the question of the guilt or innocence of the President of the commission of an impeachable offense,

this vote of the Senate was in the nature of a vote of "guilty." It was therefore to a degree an impeachment

and conviction combined by the Senate, prior to the bringing of an accusation by the House of

Representatives, the constitutional body for the preferment of an impeachment of the Presidentand was an

improper, and not far removed from an indecent proceeding on the part of the Senate. In effect, the President

was thereby condemned by the Senate without trial, and his later arraignment was simply to receive

sentenceit being solely upon the removal of Mr. Stanton that the impeachment was brought by the House.

It is noticeable, and possibly indicative, that the names of twenty out of fiftyfour members of the Senate do

not appear in this lista very unusual occurrence in divisions of that body; especially in the exciting

conditions that then prevailed. The absentees, or at least abstentions from voting, were fifteen Republicans

and five Democrats, more than onethird of the body. That very unusual absence or abstention from voting

may well be attributed to the very proper hesitancy of Senators to commit themselves in advance, either way,

on a proposition that was reasonably certain to lead to an impeachment of the President, then virtually

pending and imminent in the House, and upon which the Senate was equally certain to be called upon to act.

The action of the President was also communicated to the House of Representatives by Mr. Stanton, at the

same hour of the same day, February 21st, 1868, in the following communication, enclosing a copy of the

Sir:Gen. Thomas has just delivered to me a copy of the enclosed order, which you will please

(Signed) E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War. Hon. Schuyler Colfax, Speaker House of Representatives.

This gave new life to the impeachment cause, which had a few weeks before been defeated in the House and

since then had, for lack of material, been laming, to the discouragement of many of its advocates: and the

gleeful ejaculations, on the floor of the House, in the lobbies, and on the streets, on receipt of this news, and

more especially after the action of the Senate became known, which was not long in reaching the public, with

The communication of Mr. Stanton to the House of Representatives was immediately, after reading, referred

In the evening of the same day, Mr. Covode, of Pennsylvania, offered a resolution to impeach the President,

On the next day, Feb. 22d, 1868, Mr. Stevens, Chairman of that Committee, made the following report:

The Committee on Reconstruction, to whom was referred, on the 27th day of January last, the following

"Resolved, That the Committee on Reconstruction be authorized to inquire what combinations have been

made or attempted to be made to obstruct the due execution of the laws; and to that end the committee have

power to send for persons and papers and to examine witnesses oil oath, and report to this House what action.

if any, they may deem necessary; and that said committee bade leave to report at any time."

And to whom was also referred, on the 21st day of February, instant, a communication from Hon. Edwin M.

Stanton, Secretary of War, dated on said 21st day of February, together with a copy of a letter from Andrew

Johnson, President of the United States, to the said Edwin M. Stanton, as follows:

Sir:By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as President, by the Constitution and laws of the

United States, you are hereby removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, and your

You will transfer to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the Army, who has this day

been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other

And to whom was also referred by the House of Representatives the following resolution, namely:

"Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and

Have considered the several subjects referred to them, and submit the following report:

That in addition to the papers referred to the committee, the committee find that the President, on the 21st day

of February, 1868, signed and issued a commission or letter of authority to one Lorenzo Thomas, directing

and authorizing said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and to take possession of the books,

records, and papers, and other public property in the War Department, of which the following is a copy:

Sir:Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of

War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately

enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to

you all the records, books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.

To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the United States Army. Washington,

Upon the evidence collected by the committee, which is herewith 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

United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors. They therefore recommend to the House the

adoption of the accompanying resolution. Thaddeus Stevens, George S.Boutwell, John A. Bingham, C. T.

Resolution providing for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States.

Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and

The following is a brief synopsisof the debate which ensued: Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is

not my intention in the first instance to discuss this question; and if there be no desire on the other side to

discuss it we are willing that the question should be taken upon the knowledge which the House already has.

Indeed, the fact of removing a man from office while the Senate was in session without the consent of the

Senate, if there were nothing else, is of itself, and always has been considered, a high crime and

misdemeanor, and was never before p racticed. But I will not discuss this question unless gentlemen on the

other side desire to discuss it. It they do, I shall for the present give way to them and say what I have to say in

Mr. Brooke, (Dem. of N. Y.) Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have an opportunity, at least, to submit a minority

report before we entered upon this august proceeding of impeaching the chief executive officer of this

Government. Bat after a session of the Committee on Reconstruction, hardly an hour in length, violating an

express rule of this House by sitting during the sessionfor Rule 72 provides that no committee shall sit

during the session of the House without special leavewe have been summoned upon a very partial

submission of facts, without any comprehension, in reality, of the charges which are made against the

President of they United States, upon a new indictment, in a new form once more, and in a more alarming

manner than ever, in this but a partial Congress, representing but a section of a portion of the peoplein my

judgment not representing the people of the United States at allto act as a grand jury, with a large portion of

that grand jury excluded from the juryroom here; and suddenly, impromptu perhaps, a vote is to be forced

I am utterly inadequate to discharge the duty which has devolved upon me on this august day, the anniversary

of the birthday of the Father of his country. I am utterly unable upon this occasion either to do my duty to the

people or to express myself with that deep solemnity which I feel in rising to resist this untoward, this

unholy, this unconstitutional proceeding. Indeed, I know not why the ghost of impeachment hag appeared

here in a new form. We have attempted to lay it hitherto, and we have successfully laid it. upon the floor of

this House. But a minority of the party on the other side, forcing its influence and its power upon a majority

of a committee of this House, has at last succeeded in compelling its party to approach the House itself in a

united, and therefore in a more solemn form, and to demand the impeachment of the President of the United

Sir, we have long been in the midst of a revolution. Long, long has our country been agitated by the throes of

that revolution. But we are now approaching the last and the final stage of that revolution in which, like many

revolutions that have preceded it. a legislative power not representing the people attempts to depose the

executive power, and thus to overthrow that constitutional branch of the Government.

There is nothing new in all this. There is nothing new in what we are doing, for men of the present but repeat

the history of the past. We are traversing over and over again the days of Cromwell and Charles I and Charles

II, and we are traversing over and over again the scenes of the French revolution, baptized in blood in our

introductory part, but I trust in God never again to be baptized by any revolutionary proceeding on the part of

I have not and never have been a defender of all the opinions of General Jackson, but those on the other side

who pretend to hold him as authority and those on this side who have ever held him as authority will find that

in uttering the opinions which I have I but reutter the opinions which he advanced in his veto of July 10,

"The Congress, the Executive, and the court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the

Constitution. Each public officer who takes the oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it

The President of the United States has given his opinion upon the official tenureofoffice act and upon the

Constitution of the United States by the appointment of Adjutant General Thomas as Secretary of War ad

interim. and because of the exercise of that Constitutional right we are called upon here at once to pronounce

him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and to demand his deposition and degradation therefor. * * * * *

Mr. Spalding, (Rep. of Ohio). Mr. Speaker, I feel myself to be in no proper frame of mind or heart to attempt

rhetorical display on this occasion. I can appreciate the sentiments of the gentleman from New York [Mr.

Brooks] when he says the question before us is filled with solemnity; but when he attempts by gasconade to

deter members on this side of the House from the conscientious discharge of their duty I say to my friend that

he has :.mistaken his calling." Sir, no more important duty could be devolved upon this House of

Representatives than that of considering the question whether articles of impeachment shall be preferred

against the Chief Magistrate of the United States; and for long months, ay, for more than a year, sir. I have

resisted, with all my efforts and all my personal influence, the approach of that crisis which is now upon us

and before us. The President has clone many, very many, censurable acts: but I could not, on my conscience.

say that he should be holden to answer upon a charge of "high crimes and misdemeanors" until something

could be made tangible whereby ha had brought himself in open conflict with the Constitution and laws of

It has seemed to me, sir, for weeks, that this high officer of our government was inviting the very ordeal

which, I am sorry to say, is now upon us, and the dread consequences of which will speedily be upon him. He

has thrown himself violently in contact with an Act of Congress passed on the 2d day of March last by the

votes of the constitutional twothirds of the Senate and twothirds of the House of Representatives over his

veto assigning his reasons for withholding his assent. Now, it matters not how many acts can be found upon

the statute books in years gone by that would sanction the removal of a cabinet officer by the President; the

gentleman from New York numbers three. He may reckon up thirty or three hundred and still if, within the

last six or nine months, Congress has, in a constitutional manner, made an enactment that prohibits such

removal, and the executive wantonly disregards such enactment and attempts to remove the officer, he incurs

the penalty as clearly and as certainly as if there never had been any legislation to the contrary. That

subsequent enactment, if it be constitutional, repeals, by its own force, all other prior enactments with which

it may conflict; and in nothing is that enactment more significant than in this, that the President shall not

remove any civil officer, who has been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without

Mr. Bingham, (Rep.) of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, all rightminded men must concede that the question under

consideration is one of supreme moment to till the people of the Republic. I protest for myself, sir, that I am

utterly incapable of approaching the discussion of this question in the spirit of a partisan. I repel, sir, the

intimation of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Brooks, that I am careless of the obligation of my oath or

unconcerned about the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws. I look upon the Constitution of the

country as the very breath of the nation's life. I invoke this day upon the consideration of this great question

the matchless name of Washington, as did the gentleman, and ask him, in the consideration of the matter now

before us, to ponder upon those deathless words of the Father of our Country, wherein he declares that "the

Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is

sacredly obligatory upon all"upon all sir, from the President to the humblest citizenstanding within the

jurisdiction of the Republic. Washington but echoed the words that himself and his associates had imbedded

in the text of the Constitution, that "this Constitution and the laws passed in pursuance thereof shall be the

supreme law of the land." It shall be supreme over every officer; it shall be supreme over every State; it shall

be supreme over every territory; it shall be supreme upon every deck covered by your flag in every zone all

round the globe. Every man within its jurisdiction, official and unofficial, must bow to the supremacy of the

The gentleman says that the issue involved is an issue about an office. I beg the gentleman's pardon. The

issue involved is whether the supremacy of the Constitution shall be maintained by the people's

Representatives. The President of the United States has assumed, sir, to set himself above the Constitution

and the laws. He has assumed to defy the law, he has assumed to challenge the people's Representatives to sit

in judgment upon his malfeasance in office. Every man who has considered it worth while to observe my

conduct touching this question that has so long agitated this House and agitated this country may have

discovered that I have kept myself back and have endeavored to keep others back from making any

unnecessary issue between the President and Representatives of the people touching the manner in which he

discharged the duties of his great office. I had no desire, sir, to have resort unnecessarily to this highest power

reposed by the people in their Representatives and their Senators for the vindication of their own violated

Constitution and violated laws. Notwithstanding there was much in the conduct of the President to endanger

the peace and repose of the country, yet, so long as there was any doubt upon the question of his liability to

impeachment within the text and spirit of the Constitution, I was unwilling to utter one syllable to favor such

Mr. Beck, (Dem. of Ky.) The single question upon which the decision of this House is now to be made is that

the President has attempted to test the constitutionality of a law which he believes to be unconstitutional. All

the testimony heretofore presented upon which to base an impeachment of the President was decided by even

a majority of the Republican members of this House to be insufficient to justify impeachment. All questions

growing out of the combinations and conspiracies lately charged upon the President were ruled by the

Reconstruction Committee to be insufficient, and were not brought before this House. And the sole question

now before us is, is there anything in this last act of the President removing Mr. Stanton and appointing

Adjutant General Thomas Secretary of War ad interim to justify his impeachment by this House?

I maintain that the President of the United States is in duty bound to test the legality of every law which he

thinks interferes with his rights and powers as the Chief Magistrate of this nation. Whenever he has powers

conferred upon him by the Constitution of the United States, and an act of Congress undertakes to deprive

him of those powers, or any of them. he would be false to his trust as the Chief Executive of this nation, false

to the interests of the people whom he represents, if he did not by every means in his power seek to test the

constitutionality of that law, and to take whatever steps were necessary and proper to have it tested by the

highest tribunal in the land, and to ascertain whether he has a right under the Constitution to do what he

claims the right to do, or whether Congress has the right to deprive him of the powers which he claims have

been vested in him by the Constitution of the United States, and that is all that he proposes to do in this case.

Mr. Logan, (Rep. of Ills.) Now, Mr. Speaker, let us examine this question for a moment. It seems to me very

plain and easy of solution. It is not necessary, in order to decide whether this action of the President of the

United States comes within the purview and meaning of this statute, for us to talk about revolutions or what

this man or that man has said or decided. What has been the act of the President is the question. The law is

plain. If the President shall appoint or shall give a letter of authority or issue a commission to any person,

without the consent of the Senate, he is guilty ofwhat? The law says of a high misdemeanor. And, under

and by virtue of the Constitution, the President can be impeachedfor what? For high crimes or

misdemeanors. This law declares the issuing a commission to, or giving a letter of authority to, or appointing

to or removing from office, any person. without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States,

shall be a high misdemeanor, which is within the meaning and within the pale of the Constitution of the

Now, what is the evidence presented to this body by one of its committees? It is of this character: The

Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, has been declared by a solemn vote of the Senate to be the Secretary of

War, by virtue ofwhat? By virtue of an appointment to that office; by reason of the fact that Andrew

Johnson did not relieve him from office when he had the right to present the name of somebody elsesoon

after his taking the presidential chairnot the right to turn him out, but the right to nominate some one else

to the senate and ask them to confirm him to that office. That the President failed to do. Then, acting under

the provisions of this statute, the President suspended Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War, but the Senate passed

upon that act, and decided that the reasons given by the President for suspending Mr. Stanton were not

satisfactory; and accordingly, by virtue of this law, Mr. Stanton was confirmed and reinstated in his position

Now, all this having been done, it cannot certainly be claimed that the President, in his recent course in

regard to Mr. Stanton, has acted without any intention of violating the law. Nor can it be claimed that the

Mr. Holman (Dem., Ind.) We have listened to much excited eloquence upon this question. It is too manifest

that Congress, moving on with that impetus which is ever the result of excessive political power. seeks to

usurp those powers which are by the Constitution vested in the other Departments of the Government. I do

not propose to discuss this subject or answer the speech of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Logan] with any

words of my own. I have before me a paper which is full of mature wisdom and patriotic counsel, a speech

that comes from the solemn past, yet speaks to every heart that beats for the Union of these States, and the

prosperity of the American people; a voice that is answered back from every battlefield of the Revolution,

and from the grave of every soldier who has fallen in defense of American liberty. I ask that this speech may

be read to the House, as appropriate to this day, the 22nd of February, a day once so venerated. I ask that this

immortal address to the American people, a speech that needs no revision: a speech in which there can be no

interruptions made in this moment of passion, be read to the American Congress, for I can well afford to be

silent while that great voice speaks to the Representatives of the people of this Republic.

Mr. Peters: I rise to a question of order. I insist that that address is not germane to the question before the

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio: Allow me to suggest that it is germane, for the reason that it relates to retirement

The Speaker pro tempore, (Mr. Blaine, in the chair.) The Chair sustains the point of order.

Mr. Holman: I hope no gentleman will object to the completion of the reading: it will only occupy the time I

Mr. Peters: It is doubtless very instructive, and so would a chapter of the Bible be. but it has nothing to do

The Speaker pro tempore. Up to this point the discussion has been pertinent and germane to the

questionvery closely soand the Chair is compelled to rule, the question of order being raised, that this is

Mr. Holman: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States would scarcely be in order. I will

The debate continued in the vein illustrated in the foregoing extracts, from the morning of February 22,

notwithstanding it was a National Holiday, such was the haste of the impeachers, to the evening of the 24th,

almost without interruption. It was at times illustrated by marked ability, and on the Republican side by

intense bitterness and partisan malignity. A large number of the members of the House participated in the

Mr. Thaddeus Stevens then closed the debate in the following arraignment of the President:

Now in defiance of this law. (the OfficeTenure Act) Andrew Johnson, on the 21st day of February, 1868,

issued his commission or letter of authority to one Lorenzo Thomas, appointing him Secretary of War ad

interim, and commanded him to take possession of the Department of War and to eject the incumbent. E M.

Stanton, then in lawful possession of said office. Here, if this act stood alone, would be an undeniable official

misdemeanor not only a misdemeanor per se, but declared to be so by the act itself, and the party made

indictable and punishable in a criminal proceeding. If Andrew Johnson escapes with bare removal from

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, he may thank the weakness or the clemency of Congress and not his own

We shall propose to prove on the trial that Andrew Johnson was guilty of misprision of bribery by offering to

General Grant, if he would unite with him in his lawless violence, to assume in his stead the penalties and to

endure the imprisonment denounced by the law Bribery is one of the offenses specifically enumerated for

which the President may be impeached and removed from office. By the Constitution, article two, section

two, the President has power to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint all

officers of the United States whose appointments are not therein otherwise provided for and which shall be

established by law, and to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting

commissions which shall expire at the end of their nest session. Nowhere, either in the Constitution or by

statute, has the President power to create a vacancy during the session of the Senate and fill it without the

advice and consent of the Senate, and yet, on the 21st day of February, 1868, while the Senate was in session,

he notified the head of the War Department that he was removed from office and his successor ad interim

appointed. Here is a plain, recorded violation of the Constitution and laws, which, if it stood alone, would

make every honest and intelligent man give his vote for impeachment. The President had persevered in his

lawless course through along series of unjustifiable acts. When the so called Confederate States of America

were conquered and had laid down their arms and surrendered their territory to the victorious Union the

government and final disposition of the conquered country BELONGED TO CONGRESS ALONE,

Neither the Executive nor the judiciary had any right to interfere with it except so far as was necessary to

control it by military rule until the SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE NATION had provided for its civil

administration. No power but Congress had any right to say WHETHER EVER OR WHEN they should be

admitted to the Union as States and entitled to the privileges of the Constitution of the United States. And yet

Andrew Johnson, with unblushing hardihood, undertook to rule them by his own power alone; to lead them

into full communion with the Union: direct them what governments to erect and what constitutions to adopt,

and to send Representatives and Senators to Congress according to his instructions. When admonished by

express act of Congress, more than once repeated, he disregarded the warning and continued his lawless

usurpation. He is since known to have obstructed the reestablishment of those governments by the authority

of Congress, and has advised the inhabitants to resist the legislation of Congress. In my judgment his conduct

with regard to that transaction was a highhanded usurpation of power which ought long ago to have brought

him to impeachment and trial and to have removed him from his position of great mischief.

I trust that when we come to vote upon this question we shall remember that although it is the duty of the

President to see that the laws be executed, THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE NATION RESTS IN

CONGRESS, who have been placed around the executive as muniments to defend his rights, and as

watchmen to enforce his obedience to the law and the Constitution. His oath to obey the Constitution and our

duty to compel him to do it are a tremendous obligation, heavier than was ever assumed by mortal rulers. We

are to protect or to destroy the liberty and happiness of a mighty people. and to take care that they progress in

civilization and defend themselves against every kind of tyranny. As we deal with the first great political

malefactor so will be the result of our efforts to perpetuate the happiness and good government of the human

race. The God of our fathers, who inspired them with the thought of universal freedom, will hold us

responsible for the noble institutions which they projected and expected us to carry out.

Resolution providing for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States:

Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and

YeasMessrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baker,

Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Beatty, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall. Buckland,

Butler, Cake, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Cullom,

Dawes, Dodge, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferries. Ferry, Fields, Gravely, Griswold,

Halsy, Harding, Higby, Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hunter,

Ingersoll, Jenckes, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William

Lawrence, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, McCarthy, McClurg, Mercur, Miller,

Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, Nunn, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike,

Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Price, Raum, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Selye, Shanks, Smith,

Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stokes, Taffe, Taylor, Trowbridge, Twitchell,

Upson, Van Aernam. Burt Van Horn, Van Wyck, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburn,

Williams, Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson,

NaysMessrs. Adams, Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Barnum, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Burr, Cary, Chanler,

Eldridge, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Galladay, Grover, Haight, Holman, Hotchkiss, Richard D. Hubbard,

Morrissey, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Pruyn, Randall, Ross, Sitgreaves, Stewart, Stone, Taber,

Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed to go to the Senate and, at the bar thereof, in the name of the

House of Representatives and of all the people of the United States, to impeach Andrew Johnson, President of

the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and acquaint the Senate that the House of

Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him and make good the

same; and that the committee do demand that the Senate take order for the appearance of said Andrew

Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed to prepare and report articles of impeachment against

Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to

Committee to Communicate to the Senate to the Senate the action of the House ordering AN

IMPEACHMENT of the of the President of the United States.Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, and

Committee to declare articles of Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United

States.George S. Boutwell of Massachusetts; Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania; John A. Bingham, of

Ohio; James F. Wilson, of Iowa; John A. Logan, of Illinois; George W. Julian, of Indiana, and Hamilton

On February 25th, 1868, Messrs. Stevens and Bingham, a committee of the House, appeared at the bar of the

Mr. President, in obedience to the order of the House of Representatives, we appear before you, and in the

name of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United States, we do impeach Andrew

Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office; and we further inform

the Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time exhibit particular articles of impeachment

against hint and make good the same; and in their name we demand that the Senate take order for the

The committee retired, and after debate the following resolution was adopted by the Senate:

Resolved, That the Message of the House of Representatives relating to the impeachment of Andrew

Johnson. President of the United States, be referred to a select committee of seven, to consider and report

On the 26th, Mr. Howard, from the select committee appointed to consider and report upon the Message of

the House of Representatives in relation to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United

Whereas, the House of Representatives. on the 25th day of the present month, by two of their members,

Messrs. Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham, at the bar of the Senate, impeached Andrew Johnson,

President of the United States. of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and informed the Senate that the

House of Representatives will in due time exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him and make

good the same; and likewise demanded that the Senate take order for the appearance of said Andrew Johnson,

Resolved, That the Senate will take proper order thereon, of which due notice shall be given to the House of

On the 28th, Mr. Howard, of the Select Committee appointed to prepare rules for the government of trials of

impeachment, reported a series of rules, which were adopted by the Senate on March 2nd, after a three days

On the same day, the following gentlemen were elected by the House of Representatives as Managers to

Hons. Jno. A. Bingham, of Ohio; George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts; James F. Wilson, of Iowa; Benj. F.

Butler, of Massachusetts; John A. Logan, of Illinois; Thomas Wilson, of Pennsylvania, and Thaddeus

That the Secretary of the Senate inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the

managers appointed by the House of Representatives to carry to the Senate articles of impeachment against

The managers of the impeachment on the part of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar, and their

The President pro tempore: The managers of the impeachment will advance within the bar and take the seats

The managers came within the bar and took the seats assigned to them in the area in front of the Vice

The Speaker of the House of Representatives advanced and took a seat on the right of the President pro

Mr. President, the managers on the part of the House of Representatives, by order of the House, are ready at

the bar of the Senate, whenever it may please the Senate to hear them, to present articles of impeachment and

in maintenance of the impeachment preferred against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, by the

Hear 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 impeachment against Andrew

The managers then rose and remained standing, with the exception of Mr. Stevens, who was too feeble to do

Articles exhibited by the. House of Representatives of the United States. in the name of themselves and all

the people of the United States, against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, in maintenance and

support of their impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors in ofce.

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our

Lord eighteen hundred and sixtyeight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high

duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care

that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the

United States issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for

the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been theretofore duly appointed and commissioned by

and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, as such secretary, and said Andrew

Johnson, President of the United States, on the twelfth day of August in the year of our Lord eighteen

hundred and sixtyseven, and during the recess of said Senate, having suspended by his order Edwin M.

Stanton from said office, and within twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of said Senate, that is

to say, on the twelfth day of December in the year last aforesaid having reported to said Senate such

suspension with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case and the name of the person designated to

perform the duties of such office temporarily until the next meeting of the Senate, and said Senate

thereafterwards, on the thirteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixtyeight,

having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, and

having refused to concur in said suspension, whereby and by force of the provisions of an act entitled "An

Act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixtyseven,

said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson

had then and there due notice, and said Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said 21st day of

February, being lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary for the Department of War, which said order

for the removal of said Edwin M. Stanton is in substance as follows, that is to say:

Sir:By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the

United States you are hereby removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, and your

You will transfer to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the army, who has this day

been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records. books, papers, and other

Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. To the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Washington, D. C.

Which order was unlawfully issued with intent then and there to violate the act entitled "An Act regulating

the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2d, 1867, and with the further intent contrary to the

provisions of said act, in violation thereof, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United

States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there

being in session, to remove said Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War,

the said. Edwin M. Stanton being then and there Secretary for the Department of War, and being then and

there in the due and lawful execution and discharge of the duties of said office, whereby said Andrew

Johnson. President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in

That on the said twentyfirst of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

sixtyeight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,

unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution of the

United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil

offices," passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixtyseven, without the advice and consent of the

Senate of the United States, said Senate then and there being in session, and without authority of law, did,

with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States, and the act aforesaid, issue and deliver to one

Sir:The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department

of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will

Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers, and other public property

Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas. Adjutant General U. S.

Then and there being no vacancy in said offce of Secretary for the Department of War, whereby said Andrew

Johnson. President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the twentyfirst day of February, in the year of

our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixtyeight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did commit

and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office in this, that, without authority of law, while the Senate of the

United States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the

Department of War ad interim, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and with intent to violate the

Constitution of the United States, and no vacancy having happened in said office of Secretary for the

Department of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in said office at the time, and

which said appointment, so made by said Andrew Johnson, of said Lorenzo Thomas, is in substance as

Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C., Feb. 21, 1868. Sir:The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this

day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered

to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining

Mr. Stanton, has been instructed to transfer to you all the records. books, papers, and other public property

Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General, U. S.

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of

his oath of office, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, on the twentyfirst day of

February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixtyeight, at Washington, in the District

of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of

Representatives unknown, with intent, by intimidation and threats, unlawfully to hinder and prevent Edwin

M. Stanton, then and there the Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed under the laws of the

United Stales, from holding said office of Secretary for the Department of War, contrary to and in violation

of the Constitution of the United States, and of the provisions of an act entitled "An act to define and punish

certain conspiracies," approved July thirtyfirst, eighteen hundred and sixtyone, whereby said Andrew

Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high crime in office.

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of

his oath of office. on the twentyfirst day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred

and sixtyeight, and on divers other days and times in said year, before the second day of March, in the year,

of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixtyeight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did

unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives

unknown, to prevent and hinder the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil

offces," passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixtyseven, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did

unlawfully attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War,

duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby the

said Andrew Johnson, President of the Unite States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of

his oath of office, on the twentyfirst day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred

and sixtyeight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo

Thomas by force to seize, take and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War, and

then and there in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary for said Department, contrary to the

provisions of an act entitled "An act to define and punish certain conspiracies," approved July thirtyone,

eighteen hundred and sixty one, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled "An act regulating the

tenure of certain civil offices," passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixtyseven, whereby said

Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office.

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of

his oath of office, on the twentyfirst day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred

and sixtyeight, at Washington. in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo

Thomas with intent unlawfully to seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department

of War, in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton Secretary for said Department, with intent to violate

and disregard the act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices" passed March second,

eighteen hundred and sixtyseven, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of

his oath of office, with intent unlawfully to control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the

military service and for the Department of War, on the twentyfirst day of February, in the year of our Lord

one thousand eight hundred and sixtyeight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully and

contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed

March second, eighteen hundred and sixtyseven, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States,

and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, and while the Senate was then and

there in session, there being no vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and with intent

to violate and disregard the act aforesaid, then and there issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of

Sir:The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department

of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will

Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers, and other public property

Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General, United

Whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. on the twentysecond day of February, in the year

of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixtyeight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia. in

disregard of the Constitution, and the laws of the United States duly enacted, as commanderinchief of the

army of the United States, dial bring before himself then and there William H. Emory, a majorgeneral by

brevet in the army of the United States, actually in command of the department of Washington and the

military forces thereof, and did then and there, as such commanderinchief, declare to and instruct said

Emory that part of a law of the United states, passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixtyseven

entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the year ending June thirtieth, eighteen

hundred and sixtyeight and for other purposes," especially the second section thereof, which provides,

among other things, that "all orders and instructions relating to military operations. issued by the President or

Secretary of War, shall be issued through the General of the army, and, in case of his inability, through the

next in rank," was unconstitutional, and in contravention of the commission of said Emory, and which said

provision of law had been theretofore duly and legally promulgated by General Orders for the government

and direction of the army of the United States, as the said Andrew Johnson then and there well knew. with

intent thereby to induce said Emory, in his official capacity as commander of the department of Washington,

to violate the provisions of said act, and to take and receive, act upon, and obey such orders as he, the said

Andrew Johnson, might make and give, and which should not be issued through the General of the army of

the United States, according to the provisions of said act, and with the further intent thereby to enable him,

the said Andrew Johnson, to prevent the execution of the act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain

civil offices," passed March second eighteen hundred and sixtyseven and to unlawfully prevent Edwin M.

Stanton then being Secretary for the Department of War, from holding said office and discharging the duties

thereof, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was

And the House of Representatives by protestation saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time

hereafter any further articles, or other accusation or impeachment against the said Andrew Johnson, President

or the United States, and also of replying to his answers which he shall wake unto the articles herein preferred

against him, and of offering proof to the same, and every part thereof, and to all and every other article,

accusation, or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them, as the case shall require, do demand that the

said Andrew Johnson may be put to answer the high crimes and misdemeanors in office herein charged

against him, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments may be thereupon had and given

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and the

dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained

between the executive and legislative branches of the government of the United States, designing and

intending to set aside the rightful authority and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace,

ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof,

to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and

legislative powers thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain.)

and to excite the odium and resentment of all the good people of the United States against Congress and the

laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and

publicly, and before divers assemblages of the citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof

to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth

day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixtysix, and on divers other days

and times, as well before as afterward, make and deliver, with a loud voice, certain intemperate,

inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces. as well against

Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeer, and laughter of the

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of

his oath of offce, and in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did, heretofore, to wit, on

the eighteenth day of August, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixtysix, at the City of Washington, and the

District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and affirm, in substance, that the thirtyninth Congress of the

United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative

power under the same. but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying, and

intending to deny, that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew

Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying, and intending to deny,

the power of the said thirtyninth Congress to .propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States;

and, in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, afterwards,

towit, on the twenty first day of February, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixtyeight, at the city of

Washington, in the District of Columbia, did, unlawfully, and in disregard of the requirements of the

Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of

an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March second, eighteen hundred

and sixtyseven, by unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means by

which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary

for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension theretofore

made by said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of

War; and, also, by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means,

then and there, to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the

army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixtyeight, and for other purposes,"

approved March second, eighteen hundred and sixtyseven; and also, to prevent the execution of an act

entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March second,

eighteen hundred and sixtyseven, whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did

then, to wit, on the twentyfirst day of February, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixtyeight, at the city of

Schuyler Colfax, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Attest: Edward McPherson, Clerk of the House of

At the conclusion of the reading of the Articles of Impeachment, the President of the Senate responded that

"the Senate will take order upon the subject of impeachment, of which proper notice will be given to the

In addition to the Speaker and Managers, a large number of the members of the House of Representatives

were present to witness the extraordinary and impressive proceedings, and at its close all withdrew and the

On Monday, March 23rd, 1868, the President, by his attorneys, appeared at the bar of the Senate and made

(Answer to only the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 11th Articles, are here given, as the 2nd, 3rd and 11th were the only

Articles put to voteall others being abandoned, and as the 1st Article, though never put to vote, contained

For answer to the first article he said: That Edwin M. Stanton was appointed Secretary for the Department of

War on the 15th day of January, A. D. 1862, by Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States, during

the first term of his presidency, and was commissioned, according to the Constitution and laws of the United

States, to hold the said office during the pleasure of the President; that the office of Secretary for the

Department of War was created by an act of the first Congress in its first session, passed on the 7th day of

August, A.D. 1789, and in and by that act it was provided and enacted that the said Secretary for the

Department of War shall perform and execute such duties as shall from time to time be enjoined on and

intrusted to him by the President of the United States, agreeably to the Constitution, relative to the subjects

within the scope of said department; and furthermore, that the Secretary shall conduct the business of the said

department in such a manner as the President of the United States shall, from time to time, order and instruct.

And this respondent further answering, says that by force of the act aforesaid and by reason of his

appointment aforesaid the said Stanton became the principal officer in one of the executive departments of

the government within the true, intent and meaning of the second section of the second article of the

Constitution of the United States, and according to the true intent and meaning of that provision of the

Constitution of the United States: and, in accordance with the settled and uniform practice of each and every

President of the United States, the said Stanton then became, and so long as he should continue to hold the

said office of Secretary for the Department of War must continue to be, one of the advisers of the President of

the United States, as well as the person intrusted to act for and represent the President in matters enjoined

upon him or entrusted to him by the President touching the department aforesaid, and for whose conduct in

such capacity, subordinate to the President, the President is, by the Constitution and laws of the United

And this respondent, further answering, says he succeeded to the office of President of the United States

upon, and by reason of, the death of Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States, on the 13th day of

April, 1865, and the said Stanton was then holding the said office of Secretary for the Department of War

under and by reason of the appointment and commission aforesaid; and, not having been removed from the

said office by this respondent, the said Stanton continued to hold the same under the appointment and

commission aforesaid, at the pleasure of the President, until the time hereinafter particularly mentioned: and

And this repondent, further answering, says that on and prior to the 5th day of August, A. D. 1867, this

respondent, the President of the United States. responsible for the conduct of the Secretary for the

Department of War, and having the constitutional right to resort to and rely upon the person holding that

office for advice concerning the great and difficult public duties enjoined on the President by the Constitution

and laws of the United States, became satisfied that he could not allow the said Stanton to continue to hold

the office of Secretary for the Department of War without hazard of the public interest; that the relations

between the said Stanton and the President no longer permitted the President to resort to him for advice, or to

be, in the judgment of the President, safely responsible for his conduct of the affairs of the Department of

War, as by law required, in accordance with the orders and instructions of the President; and thereupon, by

force of the Constitution and laws of the United States, which devolve on the President the power and the

duty to control the conduct of the business of that executive department of the government, and by reason of

the constitutional duty of the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, this respondent did

necessarily consider and did determine that the said Stanton ought no longer to hold the said office of

Secretary for the Department of War. And this respondent, by virtue of the power and authority vested in him

as President of the United States by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to give effect to such his

decision and determination, did, on the 5th day of August, A. D. 1867, address to the said Stanton a note, of

Sir:Public considerations of a high character constrain me to say that your resignation as Secretary of War

Sir:Your note of this day has been received, stating that public considerations of a high character constrain

In reply I have the honor to say that public considerations of a high character, which alone have induced me

to continue at the head of this department, constrain me not to resign the office of Secretary of War before the

This respondent, as President of the United States, was thereon of opinion that, having regard to the necessary

official relations and duties of the Secretary for the Department of War to the President of the United States

according to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and having regard to the responsibility of the

President for the conduct of the said Secretary, and having regard to the permanent executive authority of the

office which the respondent holds under the Constitution and laws of the United States, it was impossible,

consistently with the public interests, to allow the said Stanton to continue to hold the said office of Secretary

for the Department of War; and it then became the official duty of the respondent, as President of the United

States, to consider and decide what act or acts should and might lawfully be done by him, as President of the

This respondent was informed and verily believed that it was practically settled by the first Congress of the

United States, and had been so considered and uniformly and in great numbers of instances acted on by each

Congress and President of the United States, in succession, from President Washington to, and including

President Lincoln, and from the first Congress to the thirtyninth Congress, that the Constitution of the

United States conferred on the President, as part of the executive power and as one of the necessary means

and instruments of performing the executive duty expressly imposed on him by the Constitution of taking

care that the laws be faithfully executed, the power at any and all times of removing from office all executive

officers for cause to be judged of by the President alone. This respondent had, in pursuance of the

Constitution, required the opinion of each principal officer of the executive departments, upon this question

of constitutional executive power and duty, and had been advised by each of them, including the said Stanton,

Secretary for the Department of War, that under the Constitution of the United States this power was lodged

by the Constitution in the President of the United States, and that consequently, it could be lawfully exercised

by him, and the Congress could not deprive him thereof; and this respondent, in his capacity of President of

the United States, and because in that capacity he was both enabled and bound to use his best judgment upon

this question, did. in good faith and with an earnest desire to arrive at the truth, come to the conclusion and

opinion, and did make the same known to the honorable the Senate of the United States by a message dated

on the 2nd day of March, 1867, that the power last mentioned was conferred and the duty of exercising it, in

fit cases, was imposed on the President by the Constitution of the United States, and that the President could

not be deprived of this, power or relieved of this duty, nor could the same be vested by law in the President

This respondent was also then aware that by the first section of "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil

offices," passed March 2, 1867, by a constitutional majority of both houses of Congress, it was enacted as

"That every person holding any civil office to which he has been appointed by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate, and every person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office, and shall become

duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold such office until a successor shall have been in

like manner appointed and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided: Provided, That the Secretaries

of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster General, and the Attorney

General shall hold their offices respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they may have

been appointed, and one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the

This respondent was also aware that this act was understood and intended to be an expression of the opinion

of the Congress by which that act was passed, that the power to remove executive officers for cause might, by

law, be taken from the President and vested in him and the Senate jointly; and although this respondent had

arrived at and still retained the opinion above expressed, and verily believed, as he still believes, that the said

first section of the last mentioned act was and is wholly inoperative and void by reason of its conflict with the

Constitution of the United States, yet, inasmuch as the same had been enacted by the constitutional majority

in each of the two houses of that Congress, this respondent considered it to be proper to examine and decide

whether the particular case of the said Stanton, on which it was this respondent's duty to act, was within or

without the terms of that first section of the act; or, if within it, whether the President had not the power,

according to the terms of the act, to remove the said Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department

of War, and having, in his capacity of President of the United States, so examined and considered, did form

the opinion that the case of the said Stanton and his tenure of office were not affected by the first section of

And this respondent, further answering, says, that although a case thus existed which, in his judgment as

President of the United States, called for the exercise of the executive power to remove the said Stanton from

the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and although this respondent was of the opinion, as is

above shown, that under the Constitution of the United States the power to remove the said Stanton from the

said office was vested in the President of the United States; and also this respondent was also of the opinion,

as is above shown, that the case of the said Stanton was not affected by the first section of the last named act,

and although each of the said opinions had been formed by this respondent upon an actual case, requiring

him, in his capacity of President of the United States. to come to some judgment and determination thereon,

yet this respondent, as President of the United States, desired and determined to avoid, if possible, any

question of the construction and effect of the said first section of the last named act, and also the broader

question of the executive power conferred on the President of the United States, by the Constitution of the

United States, to remove one of the principal officers of one of the executive departments for cause seeming

to him sufficient; and this respondent also desired and determined that if, from causes over which he could

exert no control, it should become absolutely necessary to raise and have, in some way, determined either or

both of the said last named questions, it was in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, and

was required of the President thereby, that questions of so much gravity and importance, upon which the

legislative and executive departments of the government had disagreed, which involved powers considered

by all branches of the government, during its entire history down to the year 1867, to have been confided by

the Constitution of the United States to the President, and to be necessary for the complete and proper

execution of his constitutional duties, should be in some proper way submitted to that judicial department of

the government instrusted by the Constitution with the power, and subjected by it to the duty, not only of

determining finally the construction of and effect of all acts of Congress. but of comparing them with the

Constitution of the United States and pronouncing them inoperative when found in conflict with that

fundamental law which the people have enacted for the government of all their servants. And to these ends,

first, that, through the action of the Senate of the United States, the absolute duty of the President to substitute

some fit person in place of Mr. Stanton as one of his advisers, and as a principal subordinate officer whose

official conduct he was responsible for and had lawful right to control, might, if, possible. be accomplished

without the necessity of raising any one of the questions aforesaid; and, second, if this duty could not be so

performed then that these questions, or such of them as might necessarily arise, should be judicially

determined in manner aforesaid, and for no other end or purpose, this respondent. as President of the United

States, on the 12th day of August, 1867, seven days after the reception of the letter of the said Stanton of the

5th of August, hereinbefore stated, did issue to the said Stanton the order following namely:

Sir:By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the

United States, you are hereby suspended from office as Secretary of War, and will cease to exercise any and

You will at once transfer to General Ulysses S. Grant, who has this day been authorized and empowered to

act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other public property now in your custody

Sir:Your note of this date has been received, informing me that, by virtue of the powers vested in you as

President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, I am suspended from office as Secretary of War,

and will cease to exercise any and all functions pertaining to the same, and also directing me at once to

transfer to General Ulysses S. Grant, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of

War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other public property now in my custody and charge. Under a

sense of public duty I am compelled to deny your right, under the Constitution and laws of the United States,

without the advice and consent of the senate, and without legal cause, to suspend me from office as Secretary

of War, or the exercise of any or all functions pertaining to the same, or without such advice and consent to

compel me to transfer to any person the records, books, papers, and public property in my custody as

Secretary, But inasmuch as the General commanding the Armies of the United has been appointed ad interim

and has notified me that he has accepted the appointment, I have no alternative but to submit, under protest,

And this respondent, further answering, says, that it is provided in and by the second section of "An act to

regulate the tenure of certain civil offices," that the President may suspend an officer from the performance of

the duties of the office held by him, for certain causes therein designated, until the next meeting of the

Senate, and until the case shall be acted on by the senate; that this respondent, as President of the United

States, was advised, and he verily believed and still believes, that the executive power of removal from office

confided to him by the Constitution as aforesaid includes the power of suspension from office at the pleasure

of the President, and this respondent, by the order aforesaid, did suspend the said Stanton from office, not

until the next meeting of the Senate, or until the Senate should have acted upon the case, but by force of the

power and authority vested in him by the Constitution and laws of the United States, indefinitely and at the

pleasure of the President, and the order, in form aforesaid, was made known to the Senate of the United

States on the 12th day of December, A. D. 1867, as will be more fully hereinafter stated.

And this respondent, further answering, says, that in and by the act of February 13, 1795, it was, among other

things, provided and enacted that, in case of vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, it

shall be lawful for the President, in case he shall think it necessary, to authorize any person to perform the

duties of that office until a successor be appointed or such vacancy filled, but not exceeding the term of six

months; and this respondent, being advised and believing that such law was in full force and not repealed, by

an order dated August 12, 1867, did authorize and empower Ulysses S. Grant, General of the armies of the

United States, to act as Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, in the form in which similar authority

had theretofore been given, not until the next meeting of the Senate and until the Senate should act on the

case, but at the pleasure of the President, subject only to the limitation of six months in the said

lastmentioned act contained; and a copy of the lastnamed order was made known to the Senate of the

United States on the 12th day of December, 1867, as will be hereinafter more fully stated: and in pursuance

of the design and intention aforesaid, if it should become necessary to submit the said question to a judicial

determination, this respondent, at or near the date of the lastmentioned order, did make known such his

purpose to obtain a judicial decision of the said question, or such of them as might be necessary.

And this respondent, further answering, says, that in further pursuance of his intention and design, if possible,

to perform what he judged to be his imperative duty, to prevent the said Stanton from longer holding the

office of Secretary for the Department of War, and at the same time avoiding, if possible, any question

respecting the extent of the power of removal from executive office confided to the President by the

Constitution of the United States, and any question respecting the construction and effect of the first section

of the said "act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," while he should not, by any act of his, abandon

and relinquish, either a power which he believed the Constitution had conferred on the President of the

United States, to enable him to perform the duties of his office, or, a power designedly left to him by the first

section of the act of Congress last aforesaid, this respondent did, on the 12th day of December, 1867, transmit

to the senate of the United States a message a copy whereof is hereunto annexed and marked B, wherein he

made known the orders aforesaid and the reasons which had induced the same. so far as this respondent then

considered it material and necessary that the same should be set forth, and reiterated his views concerning the

constitutional power of removal vested in the President, and also expressed his views concerning the

construction of the said first section of the last mentioned act, as respected the power of the President to

remove the said Stanton from the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, well hoping that this

respondent could thus perform what he then believed, and still believes, to be his imperative duty in reference

to the said Stanton, without derogating from the powers which this respondent believed were confided to the

President, by the Constitution and laws, and without the necessity of raising, judicially, any questions

And this respondent, further answering, says, that this hope not having been realized, the President was

compelled either to allow the said Stanton to resume the said office and remain therein contrary to the settled

convictions of the President, formed as aforesaid respecting the powers confided to him and the duties

required of him by the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the opinion formed as aforesaid, that

the first section of the last mentioned act did not affect the case of the said Stanton, and contrary to the fixed

belief of the President that he could no longer advise with or trust or be responsible for the said Stanton, for

the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, or else he was compelled to take such steps as might,

in the judgment of the President, be lawful and necessary to raise, for a judicial decision, the questions

affecting the lawful right of the said Stanton to resume the said office, or the power of the said Stanton to

persist in refusing to quit the said office if he should persist in actually refusing to quit the same; and to this

end, and to this end only, this respondent did, on the 21st day of February, 1868 issue the order for the

removal of the said Stanton, in the said first article mentioned and set forth, and the order authorizing the said

Lorenzo F. Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, in the said second article set forth.

And this respondent, proceeding to answer specifically each substantial allegation in the said first article,

says: He denies that the said Stanton, on the 21st day of February, 1868, was lawfully in possession of the

said ofce 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 of the President of the United States. He denies

that the said order for the removal of the said Stanton was unlawfully issued. He denies that the said order

was issued with intent to violate the act entitled "An act to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices." He

denies that the said order was a violation of the last mentioned act. He denies that the said order was a

violation of the Constitution of the United States, or of any law thereof, or of his oath of office. He denies

that the said order was issued with an intent to violate the Constitution of the United States or any law

thereof, or this respondent's oath of office; and he respectfully, but earnestly. insists that not only was it

issued by him in the performance of what he believed to be an imperative official duty, but in the

performance of what this honorable court will consider was.in point of fact. an imperative official duty. And

he denies that any and all substantive matters, in the said first article contained, in manner and form as the

same are therein stated and set forth, do, by law, constitute a high misdemeanor in office, within the true

And for answer to the second article, this respondent says that he admits he did issue and deliver to said

Lorenzo Thomas the said writing set forth in said second article, bearing date at Washington, District of

Columbia, February 21, 1868, addressed to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General United

States army, Washington, District of Columbia, and he further admits that the same was so issued without the

advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, then in session; but he denies that he thereby violated

the Constitution of the United States, or any law thereof, or that he did thereby intend to violate the

Constitution of the United States or the provisions of any act of Congress; and this respondent refers to his

answer to said first articles for a full statement of the purposes and intentions with which said order was

issued, and adopts the same as part of his answer to this article; and he further denies that there was then and

there no vacancy in the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, or that he did then and there

commit or was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office; and this respondent maintains and will insist:

1. That at the date and delivery of said writing there was a vacancy existing in the office of Secretary for the

2. That notwithstanding the Senate of the United States was then in session, it was lawful and according to

long and well established usage to empower and authorize the said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad

3. That if the said act regulating the tenure of civil offices be held to be a valid law, no provision of the same

was violated by the issuing of said order or by the designation of said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad

And for answer to said third article, this respondent says that he abides by his answer to said first and second

articles in so far as the same are responsive to the allegations contained in the said third article, and, without

here again repeating the same answer, prays the same be taken as an answer to this third article as fully as if

here again set out at length; and as to the new allegation contained in said third article, that this respondent

did appoint the said Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, this respondent denies that

he gave any other authority to said Thomas than such as appears in said written authority set out in said

article, by which he authorized and empowered said Thomas to act as Secretary for the Department of War ad

interim; and he denies that the same amounts to an appointment, and insists that it is only a designation of an

officer of that department to act temporarily as Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, until an

appointment should be made. But whether the said written authority amounts to an appointment or to a

temporary authority or designation, this respondent denies that in any sense he did thereby intend to violate

the Constitution of the United States, or that he thereby intended to give the said order the character or effect

of an appointment in the constitutional or legal sense of that term. He further denies that there was no

vacancy in said office of Secretary for the Department of War existing at the date of said written authority.

And in answer to the eleventh article, this respondent denies that on the 18th day of August, in the year 1866,

at the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia, he did, by public speech or otherwise, declare or

affirm, in substance or at all, that the thirtyninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the

United States authorized by the constitution to exercise legislative power under the same, or that he did then

and there declare or affirm that the said thirtyninth Congress was a Congress of only part of the States in

any sense or meaning other than that ten States of the Union were denied representation therein; or that he

made any or either of the declarations or affrmations in this behalf, in the said article alleged, as denying or

intending to deny that the legislation of said thirtyninth Congress was valid or obligatory upon this

respondent, except so far as this respondent saw fit to approve the same; and as to the allegation in said

article, that be did thereby intend or mean to be understood that the said Congress had not power to propose

amendments to the Constitution, this respondent says that in said address he said nothing in reference to the

subject of amendments of the Constitution. nor was the question of the competency of the said Congress to

propose such amendments, without the participation of said excluded States. at the time of said address in any

way mentioned or considered or referred to by this respondent. nor in what he did say had he any intent

regarding the same, and he denies the allegation so made to the contrary thereof. But this respondent, in

further answer to, and in respect of, the said allegations of the said eleventh article hereinbefore traversed and

denied, claims and insists upon his personal and official right of freedom of opinion and freedom of speech,

and his duty in his political relations as President of the United States to the people of the United States in the

exercise of such freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, in the same manner, form and effect as he has in

this behalf stated the same in his answer to the said tenth article, and with the same effect as if he here

repeated the same; and he further claims and insists, as in said answer to said tenth article he has claimed and

insisted, that he is not subject to question, inquisition, impeachment, or inculpation, in any form or manner,

of or concerning such rights of freedom of opinion or freedom of speech or his alleged exercise thereof.

And this respondent further denies that on the 21st day of February, in the year 1868, or at any other time, at

the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia, in pursuance of any such declaration as is in that behalf

in said eleventh article alleged, or otherwise, he did unlawfully, and in disregard of the requirement of the

Constitution that he should take care that the laws should be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the

execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, by

unlawfully devising or contriving, or attempting to devise or contrive, means by which he should prevent

Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of Secretary for the Department of War, or by

lawfully devising or contriving, or attempting to devise or contrive, means to prevent the execution of an act

entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868,

and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1867, or to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act to

provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March 2, 1867.

And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, says that he has, in his answer to the first

article, set forth in detail the acts, steps, and proccedings done and taken by this respondent to and toward or

in the matter of the suspension or removal of the said Edwin M. Stanton in or from the office of Secretary for

the Department of War, with the times, modes, circumstances, intents, views, purposes, and opinions of

official obligation and duty under and with which such acts, steps, and proceedings were done and taken; and

he makes answer to this eleventh article of the matters in his answer to the first article, pertaining to the

suspension or removal of said Edwin M. Stanton, to the same intent and effect as if they were here repeated

And this deponent, further answering the said eleventh article, denies that by means or reason of anything in

said article alleged, this respondent, as President of the United States, did, on the 21st day of February, 1868,

or at any other day or time. commit, or that he was guilty of, a high misdemeanor in office.

And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, says that the same and the matters therein

contained do not charge or allege the commission of any act whatever by this respondent, in his office of

President of the United States, nor the omission by this respondent of any act of official obligation or duty in

his office of President of the United States; nor does the said article nor the matters therein contained name

designate, describe, or define any act or mode or form of attempt, device, contrivance, or means, or of

attempt at device, contrivance or means, whereby this respondent can know or understand what act or mode

or form of attempt, device, contrivance or means, or of attempt at device, contrivance, or means are imputed

to or charged against this respondent, in his office of President of the United States, or intended so to be, or

whereby this respondent can more fully or definitely make answer unto the said article than he hereby does.

And this respondent, in submitting to this honorable court this his answer to the articles of impeachment

exhibited against him, respectfully reserves leave to amend and add to the same from time to time, as may

become necessary or proper, and when and as such necessity and propriety shall appear. Andrew Johnson

Henry Stanbery, B. R. Curtis, Thomas A. R. Nelson, William M. Evarts. W. S. Groesbeck. Of Counsel.

On Thursday, March 5th, 1868, the Senate of the United States was organized for the trial of the charges

RepresentativesHonorable Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States, presiding.

The following gentlemen appeared as managers of the prosecution on the part of the House:

Hon. John A. Bingham, of Ohio; Hon. George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts; Hon. James F. Wilson, of

Iowa; Hon. John A. Logan, of Illinois; Hon. Thomas F. Williams, of Pennsylvania; Hon. Benjamin F. Butler,

Messrs. Henry Stanbery, of Kentucky; Benjamin R. Curtis, of Massachusetts; Thomas A. R. Nelson, of

The following gentlemen comprised the United States Senate, sitting for the trial of the President:

CaliforniaCornelius Cole, (R)John Conness, (R). ConnecticutJames Dixon, (D)Orris S. Ferry, (R).

DelawareWillard Saulsbury, (D)James A. Bayard, (D). IllinoisLyman Trumbull, (R)Richard Yates, (R).

IndianaOliver P. Morton, (R)Thomas A. Hendricks, (D). IowaJames W. Grimes, (R)James Harlan, (R).

KansasSamuel C. Pomeroy, (R)Edmund G. Ross, (R). KentuckyThomas C. McCreary, (D)Garrett

Davis, (D). MassachusettsCharles Sumner, (R)Henry Wilson, (R). MaineWilliam Pitt Fessenden,

(R)Lot M. Morrill, (R). MarylandReverdy Johnson, (D)George Vickers, (D). MichiganZachariah

Chandler, (R)Jacob M. Howard, (R). MissouriJohn B. Henderson, (R)Charles D. Drake, (R).

MinnesotaAlexander Ramsay, (R)Daniel S. Norton, (D). New YorkRoscoe Conkling, (R)Edwin D.

Morgan, (R). NevadaJames W. Nye, (R)William M. Stewart, (R). NebraskaThomas W. Tipton, (R)John

M. Thayer, (R). New JerseyAlexander G. Cattell, (R)F. T. Frelinghuysen, (R). New HampshireAlexander

H. Craigin, (R)Jas. W. Patterson, (R). OhioJohn Sherman, (R)Benjamin F. Wade, (R). OregonHenry W.

Corbett, (R)Geo. H. Williams, (R). PennsylvaniaSimon Cameron, (R)Charles R. Buckalew, (D). Rhode

IslandHenry B. Anthony, (R)William Sprague, (R). TennesseeDavid T. Patterson, (D)Joseph S.

Fowler, (R). VermontGeorge F. Edmunds, (R)Justin S. Morrill, (R). West VirginiaW. T.

Willey,(R)Peter (3. Van Winkle, (R). WisconsinJames R. Doolittle, (D)Timothy O. Howe, (R).

The House bringing the Impeachment was threefourths Republicanthe Senate that tried it was more than

threefourths Republicanthe managers on the part of the House were all Republicansthe counsel for the

President were three Democrats and one Republicanthe President on trial was a Democratthe

interrogatories propounded to witnesses were generally received or rejected, according as their probable

answers would make for or against the Presidentthe people of the country at large were, as a rule, rigidly

divided on party lines relative to the case, Republicans demanding the conviction of the President and

Democrats urging his acquittal. The Chief Justice presiding in the trial was the only strictly nonpartisan factor

The answer of the President to the Articles of Impeachment having been presented on the 23rd of March,

1868the replication of the House duly made, and all the preliminary steps completed, the proceedings in

the actual trial commenced on the 30th day of March, 1868. Gen. Butler, one of the managers on the part of

the House, made the opening argument for the prosecution, from which the following extracts are taken:

The first eight articles set out in several distinct forms the acts of the respondent removing Mr. Stanton from

office, and appointing Mr. Thomas, ad interim, differing in legal effect in the purposes for which and the

intent with which, either or both of the acts were done, and the legal duties and rights infringed, and the acts

All the articles allege these acts to be in contravention of his oath of office, and in disregard of the duties

If they are so, however, the President might have the POWER to do them under the law; still, being so done,

The President has the legal power to do many acts which, if done in disregard of his duty, or for improper

Ex. gr: he has the power of pardon; if exercised in a given case for a corrupt motive, as for the payment of

money, or wantonly pardoning all criminals, it would be a misdemeanor. Examples might be multiplied

Article first, stripped of legal verbiage, alleges that, having suspended Mr. Stanton and reported the same to

the Senate, which refused to concur in the suspension, and Stanton having rightfully resumed the duties of his

office, the respondent, 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 offices, and with the

further intent to remove Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, then in the lawful discharge of its duties,

in contravention of said act without the advice and consent of the Senate, and against the Constitution of the

Article 2 charges that the President, without authority of law, on the 21st of February, 1868, issued letter of

authority to Lorenzo Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, the Senate being in session, in violation

of the tenureofoffice act, and with intent to violate it and the Constitution, there being no vancancy in the

Article 3 alleges the same act as done without authority of law, and alleges an intent to violate the

Article 4 charges that the President conspired with Lorenzo Thomas and divers other persons, with intent, by

INTIMIDATION AND THREATS, to prevent Mr. Stanton from holding the office of Secretary of War, in

Article 5 charges the same conspiracy with Thomas to prevent Mr. Stanton's holding his office, and thereby

Article 6 charges that the President conspired with Thomas to seize and possess the property under the

control of the War Department by FORCE, in contravention of the act of July 31, 1861, and with intent to

Article 7 charges the same conspiracy, with intent only to violate the civil tenureofoffice act.

Articles 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th may all be considered together, as to to the proof to support them.

It will be shown that having removed Stanton and appointed Thomas, the President sent Thomas to the War

Office to obtain possession; that having been met by Stanton with a denial of his rights, Thomas retired, and

after consultation with the President, Thomas asserted his purpose to take possession of the War Office by

force, making his boast in several public places of his intentions so to do, but was prevented by being

This will be shown by the evidence of Hon. Mr. Van Horn, a member of the House, who was present when

the demand for possession of the War office was made by General Thomas, already made public.

By the testimony of the Hon. Mr. Burleigh, who, after that, in the evening of the twentyfirst of February,

was told by Thomas that he intended to take possession of the War Office by force the following morning,

and invited him up to see the performance. Mr. Burleigh attended, but the act did not come off, for Thomas

By Thomas boasting at Willard's hotel on the same evening that he should call on General Grant for military

force to put him in possession of the office, and he did not see how Grant could refuse it. Article 8 charges

that the appointment of Thomas was made for the purpose of getting control of the disbursement of the

In addition to the proof already adduced, it will be shown that, after the appointment of Thomas, which must

have been known to the members of his cabinet, the President caused a formal notice to be served on the

Secretary of the Treasury, to the end that the Secretary might answer the requisitions for money of Thomas,

and this was only prevented by the firmness with which Stanton retained possession of the books and papers

of the War office. It will be seen that every fact charged in Article 1 is admitted by the answer of the

respondent; the intent also admitted as charged; that is to say, to set aside the civil tenureofoffice act, and

to remove Mr. Stanton from the office of the Secretary for the Department of War without the advice and

consent of the Senate, and, if not justified, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution itself.

The only question remaining is, does the respondent justify himself by the Constitution and laws?

On this he avers, that by the Constitution, there is "conferred on the President as a part of the executive

power, the power at any and all times of removing from office all executive officers for cause, to be judged of

by the President alone, and that he verily believes that the executive power of removal from office, confided

to him by the Constitution, as aforesaid, includes the power of suspension from office indefinitely."

Now, these offices, so vacated, must be filled, temporarily at least, by his appointment, because government

must go on; there can be no interregnum in the execution of the laws in an organized government; he claims,

therefore, of necessity, the right to fill their places with appointments of his choice, and that this power can

not be restrained or limited in any degree by any law of Congress, because, he avers, "that the power was

conferred, and the duty of exercising it in fit cases was imposed on the President by the Constitution of the

United States, and that the President could not be deprived of this power, or relieved of this duty, nor could

the same be vested by law in the President and the Senate jointly, either in part or whole."

This, then, is the plain and inevitable issue before the Sehate and the American people:

Has the President, under the Constitution, the more than kingly prerogative at will to remove from office and

suspend from office indefinitely, all executive officers of the United States, either civil, military or naval, at

any and all times, and fill the vacancies with creatures of his own appointment, for his own purposes, without

any restraint whatever, or possibility of restraint by the Senate or by Congress through laws duly enacted?

The House of Representatives, in behalf of the people join this issue by affirming that the exercise of such

If the affirmative is maintained by the respondent, then, so far as the first eight articles are

concernedunless such corrupt purposes are shown as will of themselves make the exercise of a legal power

Therefore, by these articles and the answers thereto, the momentous question, here and now, is raised whether

the PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE ITSELF (IF IT HAS THE PREROGATIVES AND POWER CLAIMED FOR

FREE PEOPLE, while by the last three articles the simpler and less important inquiry is to be determined,

whether Andrew Johnson has so conducted himself that he ought longer to held any constitutional office

whatever. The latter sinks to merited insignificance compared with the grandeur of the former.

If that is sustained, then a right and power hitherto unclaimed and unknown to the people of the country is

engrafted on the Constitution most alarming in its extent, most corrupting in its influence, most dangerous in

Whoever, therefore, votes "not guilty" on these articles votes to enchain our free institutions, and to prostrate

A few days after this, Judge Curtis, of the President's counsel, spoke on behalf of the President. The first and

principal Goverment of the Articles of Impeachment against Mr. Johnson was violation of the OfficeTenure

Act, which had been passed the year before for the undisguised purpose of restricting the President's power to

remove his Cabinet officers, particularly, his War Minister, Mr. Stanton. It was apparent that Mr. Butler had

been embarassed in his plea by the proviso of that Act, that members of the Cabinet should hold "during the

term of the President by WHOM THEY MAY HAVE BEEN APPOINTED and for one month longer."

Mr. Butler had askedBy whom was Mr. Stanton appointed? By Mr. Lincoln. Whose presidential term was

he holding tinder when the bullet of Booth became a proximate cause of this trial? Was not this appointment

in full force at that hour. Had any act of the respondent up to the 12th day of August last vitiated or interfered

with that appointment? Whose Presidential term is the respondent now serving out? His own, or Mr.

Lincoln's. If his own, he is entitled to four years up to the anniversary of the murder, because each

presidential term is four years by the Constitution, and the regular recurrence of those terms is fixed by the

Act of May 8, 1792. If he is serving out the remainder of Mr. Lincoln's term, then his term of office expires

Judge Curtis struck his first blow at the weak point of General Butler's speech. He said:

There is a question involved which enters deeply into the first eight Articles of Impeachment and materially

touches two of the others; and to that question I desire in the first place to invite the attention of the court,

must ask your attention therefore to the construction and application of the first section of that act, as follows:

"that every person holding an official position to which he has been appointed by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate, and every person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office and shall become

duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold such office until a successor shall have been in

like manner appointed and duly qualified, except as herein OTHERWISE PROVIDED." Then comes what is

otherwise provided. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the Secretaries of State, Treasury, War, Navy, and

Interior Departments, the Postmaster General and Attorney General, shall hold their offices respectively for

The first inquiry which arises on this language, is as to the meaning of the words "for and during the term of

the President." Mr. Stanton, as appears by the commission which has been put in the case by the Honorable

Managers, was appointed in January, 1862, during the first term of President Lincoln. Are the words "during

the term of the President," applicable to Mr. Stanton's case? That depends upon whether an expounder of this

law, judicially, who finds set down in it as a part of the descriptive words, "DURING THE TERMS OF THE

I respectfully submit no such judicial interpretation can be put on the words. Then, if you please, take the

next step: "During the term of the President by whom he was appointed, "At the time when this order was

issued for the removal of Mr. Stanton, was he holding the term of the President by whom he was appointed?

The Honorable Managers say yes; because, as they, say, Mr. Johnson is merely serving out the residue of Mr.

Lincoln's term. But is that so under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States? * * Although the

President, like the Vice President, is elected for a term of four years, and each is elected for the same term,

the President is not to hold the office absolutely during four years. The limit of four years is not an absolute

limit. Death is a limit. "A conditional limitation," as the lawyers call it, is imposed on his tenure of office.

And when the President dies his term of four years, for which he was elected and during which he was to

hold provided he should so long live, terminates, and the office devolves upon the Vice President. For what

ELECTED. And there is no more propriety, under the provisions of the Constitution of the United litates, in

calling the term during which Mr. Johnson holds the office of President, after it was devolved upon him, a

part of Mr. Lincoln's term. then there would be propriety in saying that one sovereign who succeeded another

sovereign by death, holds his predecessor's term.** They (the Cabinet officers) were to be the advisers of the

President; they were to be the immediate confidential assistants of the President, for whom he was to be

responsible, but in whom he was expected to repose a great amount of trust and confidence; and therefore it

was that this Act has connected the tenureofoffice of these Secretaries to which it applies with the

President by whom they were appointed. It says, in the description which the Act gives of the future

tenureofoffice of Secretaries, that a controlling regard is to be had to the fact that the Secretary whose

tenure is to be regulated was appointed by some particular President; and during the term of that President he

shall continue to hold his office; but as for Secretaries who are in office, not appointed by the President, we

have nothing to say; we leave them as they heretofore have been. I submit to Senators that this is the natural,

and, having regard to the character of these officers, the necessary conclusion, that the tenureofoffice of a

Secretary here described is a tenure during the term of service of the President by whom he was appointed;

that it was not the intention of Congress to compel a President of the United States to continue in office a

Shortly after this, occurred one of the most amusing and interesting incidents of the trial. Mr. Boutwell, who

was altogether a matteroffact man, though at times indulging in the heroics, ventured, in the course of his

argument, upon a flight of imagination in depicting the punishment that should be meted out to Mr. Johnson

for venturing to differ with Congress upon the constitutionality of an act of that body. He said:

Travelers and astronomers inform us that in the Southern heavens, near the Southern cross, there is a vast

space which the uneducated call the "hole in the sky," where the eye of man, with the aid of the powers of the

telescope, has been unable to discover nebulae, or asteroid, or comet, or planet, or star, or sun. In that dreary,

cold, dark region of space, which is only known to be less infinite by the evidences of creation elsewhere, the

great author of celestial mechanism has left the chaos which was in the beginning. If this earth were capable

of the sentiments and emotions of justice and virtue which in human mortal beings are the evidences and

pledge of our divine origin and immortal destiny, it would heave and throb with the energy of the elemental

forces of nature, and project this enemy (referring to President Johnson) of two races of men into that vast

region, there forever to exist in a solitude eternal as life or as the absence of life, emblematical of. if not

really, that outer darkness of which the Savior of mankind spoke in warning to those who are enemies to

Mr. Evarts followed Mr. Boutwell, and in the course of his argument referred to this paragraph in Mr.

Boutwell's speech in the following humorously sarcastic vein, during the delivery of which, the Senate was

I may as conveniently at this point of the argument as at any other pay some attention to the astronomical

punishment which the learned and honorable manager Mr. Boutwell, thinks should be applied to this novel

case of impeachment of the President. Cicero, I think it is, who says that a lawyer should know everything,

for sooner or later, there is no fact in history, science or human knowledge that will not come into play in his

arguments. Painfully sensitive of my ignorance, being devoted to a profession which "sharpens and does not

enlarge the mind," I yet can admire without envy the superior knowledge evinced by the honorable manager.

Indeed, upon my soul, I believe he is aware of an astronomical fact which many professors of the science are

wholly ignorant of; but nevertheless, while some of his colleagues were paying attention to an unoccupied

and unappropriated island on the surface of the seas, Mr. Manager Boutwell, more ambitious, had discovered

an untenated and unappropriated region in the skies, reserved, he would have us think, in the final councils of

the Almighty as the place of punishment for deposed and convicted American Presidents.

At first, I thought that his mind had become so enlarged that it was not sharp enough to observe that the

Constitution has limited the punishment, but on reflection I saw that he was as legal and logical as he was

ambitious and astronomical; for the Constitution has said "remove from office," and has put no limit to the

distance of removal so that it may be without the shedding of a drop of his blood or taking a penny of his

property, or confining his limbs. Instant removal from office and transportation to the skies. Truly this is a

great undertaking, and if the learned manager can only get over the obstacle of the laws of nature, the

He can contrive no method but that of a convulsion of the earth that shall project the deposed President to this

indefinitely distant space; but a shock of nature of so vast an energy and for so great a result on him might

unsettle even the footing of the firm members of Congress. We certainly need not resort to so perilous a

method as that. How shall we accomplish it? Why, in the first place, nobody knows where that space is but

the learned manager himself, and he is the necessary deputy to execute the judgment of the court. Let it then

be provided that, in case of your sentence of deposition and removal from office, the honorable and

astronomical manager shall take into his own hands the execution of the sentence. With the President made

fast to his broad and strong shoulders, and having already assayed the flight by imagination, better prepared

than anybody else to execute it in form, taking the advantage of ladders as far as ladders will go to the top of

this great capitol, and spurning there with his foot the crest of Liberty, let him set out upon his flight while

the two houses of Congress and all the people of the United States shall shout"Sic itur ad astra!" But here a

distressing doubt strikes me. How will the manager get back. He will have got far beyond the reach of

gravitation to restore him, and so ambitious a wing as his should never stoop to a downward flight. Indeed, as

he passes through the constellations, the famous question of Carlyle (by which he derides the littleness of

human affairs upon the scale of the measure of the heavens,) "What thinks Bootes as he drives his hunting

dogs up the zenith in their leash of sidereal fire?" will force itself on his notice. What, indeed, will Bootes

think of this new constellation? Besides, reaching this space beyond the power of Congress ever to send for

persons and papers, how shall he return, and how decide in the contest there become personal and

perpetualthe struggle of strength between him and the President? In this new revolution thus established

forever, who shall decide which is the sun and which is the moon? Who determine the only scientific test,

Gen. Logan, one of the managers, appeared for the prosecution, upon the close of the examination of

witnesses. The following is a brief extract from his very long and labored argument, and relates to the

It is a new method of ascertaining the meaning of a law, plain upon its face, by resorting to legislative

discussions, and giving in evidence opinions affected by the law. As a matter of fact; it is well known the act

was intended to prevent the very thing Mr. Johnson attempted in the matter of Mr. Stanton's removal. I think

this manner of defense will not avail before the Senate. The law must govern in its natural and plain

intendment, and will not be frittered away by extraneous interpretation. The President in his veto message

The proviso does not change the general provisions of the Act, except by giving a more definite limit to the

tenureofoffice, but the last paragraph of the Act puts the whole question back into the hands of the Senate

according to the general intention of the Act, and provides that even the Secretaries are subject to removal by

The Act first provides that all persons holding civil offices at the date of its passage appointed by and with

the advice and consent of the Senate, shall only be removed in the same manner. This applies to the Secretary

of War. This proviso merely gives a tenure running with the term of the President and one month thereafter,

subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The law clearly gives Mr. Stanton a

right to the office from the 4th of March, 1865, till one month after the 4th of March, 1869, and he can only

be disturbed in that tenure by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Yet, although Mr. Stanton was appointed by Mr. Lincoln in his first term, when there was no

tenureofoffice fixed by law, and continued by Mr. Lincoln in his second term, it is argued that his term

expired one month after the passage of the TenureofOffice Act, March 2nd, 1867, for the reason that Mr.

Lincoln's term expired at his death. This is false reasoning; the Constitution fixed the term of the President at

four years, and by law the commencement of his term is the 4th of March. Will it be said that when Mr.

Johnson is deposed by a verdict of the Senate, that the officer who will succeed him will serve for four years?

Certainly not. Why? Because he will have no Presidential term, and will be merely serving out a part of the

unexpired term of Mr. Lincoln, and will go out of office on the 4th of March, 1869, at the time Mr. Lincoln

The only question, then, which remains, is simply this: Has the accused violated that (TenureofOffice)

Act? No one knows better than this accused the history of, and the purpose to be secured by, that Act. It was

ably and exhaustively discussed on both sides, in all aspects. In the debates of Congress it was subsequently

reviewed and closely analyzed in a Veto Message of the respondent. No portion of that Act escaped his

remark, and no practical application which has been made of it since did he fail to anticipate. He knew before

he attempted its violation that more than threefourths of the Representatives of the people in Congress

assembled had set their seal of disapprobation upon the reasons given in the Veto Message and had enacted

the law by more than the constitutional number of votes required. Nay, more; he was repeatedly warned, by

investigations made looking toward just such a proceeding as now being witnessed in this court, that the

people had instructed their Representatives to tolerate no violation of the laws constitutionally enacted.

What is to be your judgment, Senators, in this case? Removal from office and perpetual disqualification? If

the President has committed that for which he should be ejected from office it were judicial mockery to stop

short of the largest disqualifications you can impose. It will be a heavy judgment. What is his crime in its

He tried to pluck a thorn out of his very heart, for the condition of things in the War Department, and

consequently in his Cabinet, did pain him as a thorn in his heart. You fastened it there, and you are now asked

to punish him for attempting to extract it. What more? He made an ad interim appointment to last for a single

day. You could have terminated it whenever you saw fit. You had only to take up the nomination which he

had sent to you, which was a good nomination, and act upon it and the ad interim vanished like smoke. He

had no idea of fastening it upon the department. He had no intention of doing anything of that kind. He

merely proposed that for the purpose, if the opportunity should occur, of subjecting this law to a

constitutional test. That was all the purpose it was to answer. It is all for which it was intended. The thing was

in your hands from the beginning to the end. You had only to act upon the nomination, and the matter was

I point you to the cases that have occurredof ad interim appointment after ad interim appointment; but I

point especially to the case of Mr. Holt, where the Senate in its legislative capacity examined it, weighed it,

decided upon it, heard the report of the President and received it as satisfactory. That is, for the purpose of

this trial, before the same tribunal, res adjudicate, I think, and it will be so regarded.

What else did he do? He talked with an officer about the law. That is the Emory Article. He made

intemperate speeches, though full of honest, patriotic sentiments; when reviled, he should not revile again;

"But," the gentleman who spoke last on the part of the managers, "he tried to defeat pacification and

restoration." I deny it in the sense in which he presented itthat is, as a criminal act. Here, too, he followed

precedent and trod the path in which were the footsteps of Lincoln, and which was bright with the radiance of

his divine utterance, "charity for all, malice toward none." He was eager for pacification. He thought that the

war was ended. The drums were all silentthe arsenals were all shut; the roar of the canon had died away to

the last reverberation; the armies were disbanded; not a single army confronted us in the field. Ah, he was too

eager, too forgiving, too kind. The hand of conciliation was stretched out to him and he took it? It may be he

should have put it away; but was it a crime to take it? Kindness, forgiveness a crime! Kindness a crime!

Kindness is omnipotent for good, more powerful than gunpowder or canon. Kindness is statesmanship.

Kindness is the highest statesmanship of heaven itself. The thunders of Sinai do but terrify and distract; alone

they accomplish little; it is the kindness of Calvary that subdues and pacifies.

What shall I say of this man? He is no theoriest; he is no reformer; I have looked over his life. He has ever

walked in beaten paths, and by the light of, the Constitution. The mariner, tempesttossed in midsea, does

not more certainly turn to his star for guidance than does this man in trial and difficulty to the star of the

Constitution. He loves the Constitution. It has been the study of his life. He is not learned and scholarly like

many of you; he is not a man of many ideas or of much speculation but by a law of the mind he is only the

truer to that he does know. He is a patriot, second to no one of you in the measure of his patriotism. He loves

his country; he may be full of error; I will not canvass now his views; but he loves his country; he has the

courage to defend it, and I believe to die for it if need be. His courage and patriotism are not without

illustration. My colleague (Mr. Nelson) referred the other day to the scenes which occurred in this Chamber

when he alone of twentytwo Senators remained; even his State seceded, but he remained. That was a trial of

his patriotism, of which many of you, by reason of your locality and of your lifelong associations, know

nothing. How his voice rang out in this hall in the hour of alarm for the good cause, and in denunciation of

the rebellion! But he did not remain here; it was a pleasant, honorable, safe, and easy position; but he was

wanted for a more difficult and arduous and perilous service. He faltered not, but entered upon it. That was a

trial of his courage and patriotism of which some of you who now sit in judgment on more than his life, know

nothing. I have, often thought that those who, dwelt at the North, safely distant from the collisions and strifes

of the war, knew little of its actual, trying dangers. We who lived on the border know more. Our horizon was

always red with flame; and it sometimes burned so near us that we could feel its heat upon the outstretched

hand. But he was wanted for a greater peril, and went into the very furnace of the war, and there served his

country long and well. Who of you have done more? Not one. * * * It seems cruel, Senators, that he should

be dragged here as a criminal, or that any one who served his country and bore himself well and bravely

If he has committed any gross crime, shocking alike and indiscriminately the entire public mind, then

condemn him; but he has rendered services to the country that entitle him to kind and respectful

consideration. He has precedents for everything he has done, and what excellent precedents! The voices of

the great dead come to us from the grave sanctioning his course. All our past history approves it. How can

you single out this man, now in this condition of things, and brand him before the world, put your brand of

infamy upon him because he made an ad interim appointment for a day, and possible may have made a

mistake in attempting to remove Stanton? I can at a glance put my eye on Senators here who would not

endure the position he occupied. You do not think it is right yourselves. You framed this civil tenure law to

give each President his own Cabinet, and yet his whole crime is that he wants harmony and peace in his.

Senators, I will not go on. There is a great deal that is crowding on my tongue for utterance, but it is not from

my head; it is rather from my heart; and it would be but a repetition of the vain things 1 have been saying the

past half hour But I do hope you will not drive the President out and take possession of his office. I hope this,

not merely as counsel for Andrew Johnson, for Andrew Johnson's administration is to me but as a moment,

and himself as nothing in comparison with the possible consequences of such an act. No good can come of it,

Senators, and how much will the heart of the nation be refreshed if at last the Senate of the United States can,

in its judgment upon this case, maintain its ancient dignity and high character in the midst of storms, and

A somewhat startling incident, which for the moment threatened unpleasant results, occurred in the course of

the trial. In his opening speech for the prosecution, Mr. Manager Boutwell used this language, speaking of the

The President is a man of strong will, of violent passions, of unlimited ambition, with capacity to employ and

use timid men, adhesive, subservient men, and corrupt men, as the instruments of his designs. It is the truth of

history that he has injured every person with whom he has had confidential relations, and many have escaped

ruin only by withdrawing from his society altogether. He has one rule of his life: he attempts to use every

man of power, capacity, or influence within his reach. Succeeding in his attempts, they are in time, and

usually in a short time, utterly ruined. If the considerate flee from him, if the brave and patriotic resist his

schemes or expose his plans, he attacks them with all the energy and patronage of his office, and pursues

them with all the violence of his personal hatred. He attacks to destroy all who will not become his

instruments, and all who become his instruments are destroyed in the use. He spares no one. * * * Already

this purpose of his life is illustrated in the treatment of a gentleman who was of counsel for the respondent,

The last paragraph of the above quotation manifestly referred to a disagrement between the President and

Judge Black, which led to the retirement of that gentleman from the Management of the Defense of the

To this criticism of the President, Judge Nelson, of Counsel for Defense, responded a few days later, with the

It is to me, Senators, a source of much embarassment how to speak in reply to the accusation which has thus

In order that you may understand what I have to say about it I desire to refer the Senate to a brief statement

which I have prepared on account of the delicacy of the subject; and, although I have not had time to write it

out as I would have desired to do, it will be sufficient to enable you to comprehend the facts which I am about

to state. You will understand, Senators, that I do not purport to give a full history of what I may call the Alta

Vela case, as to which a report was made to the Senate by the Secretary of State upon your call. A mere

outline of the case will be sufficient to explain what I have to say in reference to Judge Black:

Under the guano act of 1856, William T. Kendal on the one side, and Patterson and Marguiendo on the other,

filed claims in the Secretary of State's office to the island which is claimed by the government of St.

On the 17th of June, 1867, the examiner of claims submitted a report adverse to the claim for damages

against the Dominican government. On the 22d of July, 1867, Mr. Black addressed a letter to the President,

(page 10) and another on the 7th of August, 1867. On page 13 it is said that Patterson and Marguiendo

acquiesce in the decision. On page 13 it is shown that other parties are in averse possession. On page 15 it is

asserted that the contest is between citizens of the United States, and can be settled in the courts of the United

States. The contest now seems to be between Patterson and Marguiendo and Thomas B. Webster Co.

On the 14th of December, 1859, Judge Black, as Attorney General, rejected the claim of W. J. Kendall to an

island in the Carribean Sea, called Cayo Verde, and Mr. Seward seems to regard the two cases as resting on

On the 22d of July, 1867, Judge Black addressed a letter to the President enclosing a brief. On the 7th of

August, 1867, he addressed another communication to the President. On the 7th of February, 1868, an

elaborate an able communication was sent to the President, signed by W. J. Shaffer, attorney for Patterson

and Marguiendo, and Black, Lamon ,Co., counsel, in which they criticised with severity the report of Mr.

According to the best information I can obtain, I state that ON THE 9TH OF MARCH, 1868, General

Benjamin F. Butler addressed a letter to J. W. Shaffer, in which he stated that he was "clearly of the opinion

that, under the claim of the United States its citizens have the exclusive right to take guano there," and that he

had never been able to understand why the executive did not long since assert the rights of the government,

and sustain the rightful claims of its citizens to the possession of the island IN THE MOST FORCIBLE

The letter was concurred in and approved of by John A. Logan, J. A. Garfield, W. H. Koontz, J. K. Moorhead

This letter expressing the opinion of Generals Butler, Logan and Garfield was placed in the hands of the

President by Chauncey F. Black, who, on the 16th of March, 1868, addressed a letter to him in which he

enclosed a copy of the same with the concurrence of Thaddeus Stevens, John A. Bingham, J. G. Blaine, J. K.

After the date of this letter, and while Judge Black was the counsel of the respondent in this cause, he had an

interview with the President, in which he urged immediate action on his part and the sending an armed vessel

to take possession of the island; and because the President refused to do so, Judge Black, on the 19th of

Such are the facts in regard to the withdrawal of Judge Black, according to the. best information I can obtain.

The island of Alta Vela, or the claim for damages, is said to amount in value to more than a million dollars,

and it is quite likely that an extensive speculation is on foot. I have no reason to charge that any of the

managers are engaged in it, and presume that the letters were signed, as such communications are often

Judge Black no doubt thought it was his duty to other clients to press this claims but how did the President

Senators, I ask you for a moment to put yourself in the place of the President of the United States, and as this

is made a matter of railing accusation against him, to consider how the President of the United States felt it.

There are two or three facts to which I desire to call the attention of the Senate and the country in connection

with these recommendations. They are, first, that they were all gotten up after this impeachment proceeding

Another strong and powerful fact to be noticed in vindication of the President of the United States, in

reference to this case which has been so strongly preferred against him, is that these recommendations were

signed by four of the honorable, gentlemen to whom the House of Representatives have intrusted the duty of

Of course exception was taken to this statement, and to the revisal inferences therefrom, and the authenticity

of the signatures mentioned at first denied, and then an effort made to explain them away, but it is

The incident left a fixed impression, at least in the minds of many of the Senators, that an effort had been

made to coerce the President, in fear of successful impeachment, into the perpetration of a cowardly and

disgraceful international act, not only by his then Chief of Counsel, but also by a number of his active

It would be difficult to fittingly characterize this scandalous effort to pervert a great State trial into an

instrumentality for the successful exploitation of a commercial venture which was by no means free from the

Yet to Mr. Johnson's lasting credit, he proved that he possessed the honesty and courage to dare his enemies

to do their worsthe would not smirch his own name and disgrace his country and his great office, by using

its power for thepromotion of an enterprise not far removed from a scheme of personal plunder, let it cost

him what it might. It was a heroic act, and bravely, unselfishly, modestly performed.

The initial proceedings to the taking of testimony, while to a degree foreshadowing a partisan division in the

trial, also demonstrated the presence of a Republican minority which could not at all times, be depended upon

to register the decrees of the more radical portion of the body. The first development of this fact came in the

defeat of a proposition to amend the rules in the interest of the prosecution, and again on the examination of

Mr. Burleigh, a delegate from Dakota Territory in the House of Representatives and a witness brought by the

prosecution on March 31st. Mr. Butler, examining the witness, asked the question:

Had you on the evening before seen General Thomas? * * * Had you a communication with him?

Mr. Stanbery objected, and the Chief Justice ruled that the testimony was competent and would be heard

To this ruling Mr. Drake objected and appealed from the decision of the Chair to the Senate. It appeared to be

not to the ruling per se, that Mr. Drake objected, but to the right of the Chair to rule at all upon the

admissibility of testimony. Mr. Drake representing the extremists of the dominant side of the Chamber. There

seemed to be apprehension of the effect upon the Senate of the absolute judicial fairness of the rulings of the

Chief Justice, and the great weight they would naturally have, coming from so just and eminent a jurist. After

The vote on this motion was a tie, being twentyfive for and twentyfive against retiring, whereupon the

Chief Justice announced the fact of a tie and voted "yea;" and the Senate retired to its consultation room,

where, after discussion and repeated suggestions of amendment to the rules, the following resolution was

The presiding officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the

presiding officer in the trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the

purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise provided for. And the

presiding officer on the trial may rule all questions of of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall

stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken

thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision; or he may, at his option, in the first

Mr. Morrill, of Maine, moved to amend the proposed rule by striking out the words "which ruling shall stand

That the chief justice of the United States, presiding in the Senate on the trial of the President of the United

States, is not a member of the Senate, and has no authority under the Constitution to vote on any question

during the trial, and he can pronounce decision only as the organ of the Senate, with its assent.

It is not insisted here that there was any sinister purpose in this proposition, yet the possibilities, in case of its

adoption, were very grave. Like the wasp, the sting was in the tail"he (the chief justice;) can pronounce

decision only as the organ of the Senate, WITH ITS ASSENT! Had that rule been adopted, suppose the

Senate, with, its vote of fortytwo Republicans and twelve Democrats, upon failure of conviction by a

twothirds vote had refused or refrained on a party vote from giving "its assent" to a judgment of acquittal?

For its adoptionMessrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Howard,

Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull,

Against its adoptionMessrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry,

Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Vermont,

Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Van Winkle,

So the resolution was rejectedevery aye vote a Republican, and all but one, Mr. Trumbull, afterwards

voting to impeach the President at tHe close of the trialeleven Democrats and fifteen Republicans voting

It is the judgment of the Senate that under the Constitution the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate in the

pending trial has no privilege of ruling questions of law arising thereon, but that all such questions shall be

It would be difficult to formulate a proposition better calculated to taint the proceedings with a partisan bias

than this one by Mr. Drake. The impeachment movement was in a very large sense, if not entirely, a partisan

enterprise. It had its origin in partisan differences, and was based mainly on differences as to public policies

at issue between the two great parties of the countryand while it was expected that every political. friend of

the President would vote against the impeachment, it was DEMANDED, and made a test of party fealty, that

every Republican Senator should vote for his conviction. Therefore, and perhaps it was not illogical from

these premises, party leaders of Mr. Drake's inclination should not relish the influence the legal, unbiased and

nonpartisan rulings of the Chief Justice might have upon his more conservatively inclined fellow partisans

Mr. Drake called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and the vote was yeas 20, nays 30. The

The rule proposed by Mr. Henderson was then adopted. The conference closed shortly after, and the session

The next day, April 1st, Mr. Sumner renewed in the Senate his proposition submitted at the Conference the

day before but not acted upon, to change the rules of the Senate in the following form:

It appearing from the reading of the Journal yesterday that on a question where the Senate were equally

divided, the Chief Justice, presiding on the trial of the President, gave a casting vote; it is hereby ordered that,

in the judgment of the Senate, such vote was without authority under the Constitution of the United States.

YeasMessrs. Cameron, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Howard, Howe, Morgan,

Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Ramsay, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Williams,

NaysMessrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden,

Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of

Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey2616 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

So the proposed order was rejected. The trial then proceeded. The answers to a very large proportion of the

interrogatories propounded to the witnesses, on both sides, were unimportant, having very little bearing,

either way, upon the case. Twentyeight of those interrogatories, however, were more or less important, and

were challenged, seven by the defense, and twentyone by the prosecution. For convenience of reference,

these interrogatories are numbered from one to twentyeight, inclusive, with the answers thereto, when

Question submitted by Mr. Butler, of the prosecution, April 1st, 1868, to Mr. Walter A. Burleigh, witness on

You said yesterday, in answer to my question, that you had a conversation with General Lorenzo Thomason

the evening of the 21st of February last. State if he said anything as to the means by which he intended to

obtain or was directed by the President to obtain possession of the War Department. If so, state all he said, as

Mr. Drake called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and the vote was as follows:

YeasAnthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds,

Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine,

Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, Sherman, Sprague,

Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, Wilson39all Republicans.

NaysBayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of

General Butler repeated the interrogatory, and Mr. Burleigh's answer was as follows:

On the evening of February 21st last, I learned that General Thomas had been appointed Secretary of War ad

interim, I think while at the Metropolitan Hotel. I invited Mr. Leonard Smith, of Leavenworth, Kas., to go

with me up to his house and see him. We took a carriage and went up. I found the General there ready to go

out with his daughters to spend the evening at some place of amusement. I told him I would not detain him if

he was going out; but he insisted on my sitting down and I sat down for a few moments. I told him I had

learned he had been appointed Secretary of War. He said he had; that he had been appointed that day, I think;

that after receiving his appointment from the President he went to the War Office to show his authority, or his

appoiniment, to Secretary Stanton, and also his order to take possession of the office; that the Secretary

remarked to him that he supposed he would give him time to remove his personal effects, or his private

papers, or something to that effect; and the answer was "certainly." He said that in a short time the Secretary

asked him if he would give him a copy of his order, and he replied "certainly," and gave it to him. He said

that it was no more than right to give him time to take out his personal effects. I asked him when he was

going to assume the duties of the office. He remarked that he should take possession the next morning at ten

o'clock, which would be the 22nd; and I think in that connection he stated that he had issued some order in

regard to the observance of the day; but of that I am not sure. I remarked to him that I should be up at that end

of the avenue the next day, and he asked me to come in and see him. I asked him where I could find him. and

he said in the Secretary's room up stairs. I told him I would be there. Said he, "be there punctually at 10

o'clock." Said I, "you are going to take possession tomorrow?" "Yes." Said he, "suppose Stanton objects to

The witness. I asked him what he would do if Stanton objected, or resisted. He said he would use force, or

resort to force. Said I, "Suppose he bars the doors?" His reply was. "I will break them down." I think that was

Shortly after this conversation about which you have testified, and after the President restored Major General

Thomas to the office of Adjutant General, if you know the fact that he was so restored, were you present in

the War Department, and did you hear Thomas make any statements to the officers and clerks, or either of

them, belonging to the War Office, as to the rules and orders of Mr. Stanton or of the War Office which he,

Thomas, would make, revoke, relax, or rescind, in favor of such officers or employes when he had control of

the affairs therein? If so, state as near as you can when it was such conversation occurred, and state all he

Mr. Howard demanded the yeas and nays and they were ordered and were as follows:

YeasAnthony Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Henderson

Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey,

Ross, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wilson28all Republicans.

NaysBayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen,

Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Sherman, Van

Mr. Butler: With the leave of the President, I will put this question by portions.

Did you hear Thomas make any statement to the officers or clerks, or either of them, belonging to the War

Office, as to the rules and orders of Mr. Stanton, or of the office, which he, Thomas, would revoke, relax, or

Answer: The General remarked to me that he had made an arrangement to have all the heads, or officers in

charge of the different departments of the office come in with their clerks that morning, as he wanted to

address them. He stated that the rules which had been adopted for the government of the clerks by his

predecessor were of a very arbitrary character, and he proposed to relax them. I suggested to him that perhaps

I had better go. He said, "no, not at allremain," and I sat down and he had some three or four

officersfour or five, perhapscome in, and each one brought in a roomful of clerks, and he made an

address to each company as they came in, stating to them that he did not propose to hold them strictly to the

letter of the instructions; but when they wanted to go out they could go out, and when they wanted to come in

they could come in; that he regarded them all as gentlemen. and supposed they would do their duty, and he

should require them to do their duty; but so far as their little indulgences were concernedI suppose such as

going out across the street or something of that kindhe did not intend to interfere with them; all he

expected was that they would do their duty. I waited until he concluded, and we took a walk, and I came

I asked him (Thomas) to tell me what had occurred that morning between him and the Secretary of War in his

endeavor to take possession of the War Department. He hesitated to do so till I told him that the town was

filled with rumors of the change that had been made, of the removal of Mr. Stanton and the appointment of

himself. He then said that since the affair had become public he felt relieved to speak to me with freedom

about it. He drew from his pocket a copy, or rather the original, of the order of the President of the United

States, directing him to take possession of the War Department immediately. He told me that he had taken as

a witness of his action General Williams, and had gone up into the War Department and had shown to Edwin

M. Stanton the order of the President, and had demanded by virtue of that order the possession of the War

Department and its books and papers. He told me that Edwin M. Stanton, after reading the order, had asked

him if he would allow him sufficient time for him to get together his books, papers, and other personal

property and take away with him; that he told him that he would allow to him all necessary time to do so, and

had then withdrawn from Mr. Stanton's room. He further told me, that day being Friday, that the next day

would be what he called a dies non, being the holiday of the anniversary of Washington's birthday, when he

had directed that the War Department should be closed, that the day thereafter would be Sunday, and that on

Monday morning he should demand possession of the War Department and of its property, and if that

demand was refused or resisted he should apply to the GeneralinChief of the Army for a force sufficient to

enable him to take possession of the War Department; and he added that he dd not see how the General of the

Army could refuse to obey his demand for that force. He then added that under the order that the President

had given to him he had no election to pursue any other course than the one that he indicated; that he was a

subordinate officer directed by an order from a superior officer, and that he must pursue that course.

Hon. T. W. Ferry, called by the Prosecution, testified from memoranda taken down at the time of the demand

of General Thomas for possession of the War Office (Mr. Ferry being present), as follows:

In the presence of Secretary Stanton, Judge Kelley, Morehead, Dodge, Van Wyck, Van Horn, Delano, and

Freeman Clarke, at 25 minutes past 12 m., General Thomas, AdjutantGeneral, came into the Secretary of

War Office, saying"Good morning," the Secretary replying "Good morning, sir." Thomas looked around and

said, "I do not wish to disturb you gentlemen, and will wait." Stanton said, "Nothing private here; what do

you want?" Thomas demanded of Secretary Stanton the surrender of the Secretary of War Office. Stanton

denied it to hint, and ordered him back to his own office as AdjutantGeneral. Thomas refused to go. "I claim

Thomas: "I will stand here. I want no unpleasantness in the presence of these gentlemen."

Stanton: "You can stand there if you please, but you can not act as Secretary of War. I am Secretary of War. I

order you out of this office and to your own." Thomas: "I refuse to go, and will stand here."

Thomas: "I do not care to use force, but my mind is made up as to what I shall do. I want no unpleasantness,

Stanton: "You shall not, and I order you, as your superior, back to your own office."

Stanton: "You call stand there if you please. I order you out of this office to your own. I am Secretary of War,

Thomas then went into opposite room across hall (General Schriver's) and commenced ordering General

Schriver and General Townsend. Stanton entered, followed by Moorhead and Ferry, and ordered those

generals not to obey or pay any attention to General Thomas' orders; that he denied his assumed authority as

Secretary of War ad interim, and forbade their obedience of his directions. "I am Secretary of War, and I now

Thomas: "I shall require the mails of the War Department to be delivered to me and shall transact the

On Tuesday, April 2nd, the prosecution pmt in evidence a letter front the President to Gen. Grant, dated Feb.

10, 1868, in answer to a prior letter front the General. The President's letter, as introduced in evidence,

purported to contain certain enclosures relating to the subject matter of the President's letter. The following is

that portion of the President's letter which speaks of the enclosures accompanying and included therein:

GENERAL: The extraordinary character of your letter of the 3rd instant would seem to preclude any reply on

my part; but the manner in which publicity has been given to the correspondence of which that letter forms a

part, and the grave questions which are involved, induce me to take this mode of giving, as a proper sequel to

the communications which have passed between its, the statements of the five members of the cabinet who

were present on the occasion of our conversation on the 14th ultimo. Copies of the letters which they have

Counsel for the President objected that the letter introduced by the prosecution was not evidence in the case

unless the managers should also produce the enclosures therein referred to and made a part of the same. The

YeasBayard, Conkling, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson,

McCreery, Morrill of Vermont Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sprague, Trumbull, Van Winkle,

NaysAnthony, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds,

Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Nye, Patterson of New

Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, and Wilson2928

So the evidence offered by the prosecution was admitted as offered, without the enclosures referred to, the

objection by the defense not being sustained. (For these rejected enclosures see appendix.)

The prosecution offered to prove (Mr. Geo. A. Wallace, of the Treasury Department, on the stand):

That after the President had determined on the removal of Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, in spite of the

action of the Senate, there being no vacancy in the office of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the President

unlawfully appointed his friend and theretofore private secretary, Edmund Cooper, to that position, as one of

the means by which he intended to defeat the tenure of civil office act and other laws of Congress.

After debate and Mr. Wallace's answer in explanation of the usages of the department in the disbursement of

moneys, during which it was shown that no moneys could be drawn out of the treasury on the order of the

assistant secretary except when authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury to draw warrants therefor, a vote

YeasAnthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Howard, Howe,

Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton and

NaysBayard, Buckalew, Conness, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler,

Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Patterson of

New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey and

So the testimony was not received, as it was shown in the debate thereon that it would prove nothing against

Friday April 3rd, the Prosecution offered two telegraphic messages, one from Lewis E. Parsons to Andrew

Legislature in session. Efforts making to reconsider vote on Constitutional Amendment. Report from

Washington says it is probable an enabling act will pass. We do not know what to believe. I find nothing

What possible good can be obtained by reconsidering the Constitutional Amendment? I know of none in the

present posture of affairs; and I do not believe that the people of the whole country will sustain any set of

individuals in attempts to change the whole character of our Government by enabling acts or otherwise. I

believe, on the contrary, that they will eventually uphold all who have patriotism and courage to stand by the

Constitution, and who place their confidence in the people. There should be no faltering on the part of those

who are honest in their determination to sustain the several coordinate Departments of the Government in

accordance with its original design. Andrew Johnson. Hon. L. E. Parsons, Montgomery, Alabama.

YeasAnthony, Cameron. Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Henderson,

Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, Sherman,

NaysBuckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, McCreery,

Morrill of Maine, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Williams178

So the testimony was decided admissible, and was claimed by Mr. Manager Boutwell to be in substantiation

The prosecution offered in evidence a copy of the Cleveland Leader, a newspaper purporting to contain a

speech delivered by Mr. Johnson at the City of Cleveland, Ohio, on September 30th, 1866, as evidence

against the President. It was objected to by the defense, and on the call by Mr. Conness and Mr. Sumner the

YeasAnthony, Cameron, Cattell. Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds,

Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Henderson, Howard, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of

Vermont, Norton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart,

Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams3533 Republicans and 2 Democrats.

NaysBuckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Howe, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee,

So the evidence was received. It related to the tenth article, and was based on a certain speech delivered by

Saturday, April 10th, 1868, General Lorenzo Thomas on the stand, called by the Defense. Mr. Stanbery asked

him, with reference to certain interviews with the President: What occurred between the President and

Mr. Drake demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered and were as follows:

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds,

Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery,

Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of

Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers,

NaysCameron, Chandler, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Harlan, Howard, Nye, Ramsay, Thayer10all

I stated to the President that I had delivered the communication, and that Mr. Stanton gave this answer: "Do

you wish me to vacate at once, or will you give me time to take away my private property?" and that I

replied, "At your pleasure." I then said that after delivering the copy of the letter to him, he said: "I do not

know whether I will obey your instructions or resist them." This I mentioned to the President. and his answer

was: "Very well, go and take charge of the office and perform the duties." * * *

Answer: The first thing that happened to me the next morning was the appearance at my house of the marshal

Answer: About 8 o'clock, before I had my breakfast. The command was to appear forthwith. I asked if he

would permit me to see the President. * * * He went with me to the President's and went into the room where

the President was. I stated that I had been arrested, at whose suit I did not know. He said. every well, that is

the place I want it inthe courts." * * * I was required to give bail in $5,000. I asked the judge what it meant.

He said it was simply to present myself there at half past ten the following Wednesday. I asked him if it

suspended me from any of my functions. He said, "no, it has nothing to do with them." * * * I went

immediately from there, first stopping at the President's on my way, and stating that I had given bail. He

Question: Did the President at any time prior to or including the 9th of March, authorize or direct you to use

April 11, Gen. Sherman was called by the defense. In the course of his examination Mr. Stanbery asked him

In that interview, (referring to a previously mentioned interview between the General and the President in the

presence of Gen. Grant) what conversation took place between the President and you in regard to the removal

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks,

Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry,

Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont. Morton, Nye, Patterson of

New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson and

At the first interview at which the tender of the duties of the Secretary of War ad interim was made to you by

the President, did anything further pass between you and the President in reference to the tender or your

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks,

Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry,

Frelinhuysen, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye,

Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson and

In either of these conversations did the President say to you that his object in appointing you was that he

might thus get the question of Mr. Stanton's right to the office before the Supreme Court?

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Fowler, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, and Vickers74 Democrats,

NaysBuckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon,

Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks,

Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of

New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle,

Mr. Stanbery, for Defense, suggested that the question had undoubtedly been overruled upon matter of form,

Was anything said at either of those interviews by the President, as to any purpose of getting the question of

This was put and determined in the negative without a division, when Mr. Henderson offered it again in this

form: Did the President, in tendering you the appointment of Secretary of War ad interim. express the object

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson,

Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sherman,

Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle. Vickers. and Willey2514 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry,

Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire,

Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, and Yates27all Republicans.

Question: After the restoration of Mr. Stanton to office, did you form an opinion whether the good of the

service required a Secretary of War other than Mr. Stanton; and if so, did you communicate that opinion to

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Dixon, Doolittle. Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery

Patterson, of Tennessee, Ross, Trumbull, Van Winkle and Vickers156 Republicans and 9 Democrats.

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Drake, Edmunds,

Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of

Vermont, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer,

Question: Did you at any time, and when, before the President gave the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton

as Secretary of War, advise the President to appoint some other person than Mr. Stanton?

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson,

Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Trumbull, Van Winkle,

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Dixon, Drake, Ferry,

Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Nye,

Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Willey Williams,

A warrant of arrest of Gen. Thomas, dated February 22, 1868, and the affidavit on which the warrant issued.

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cattell, Cole, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden,

Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of

Vermont, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ross, Sherman,

Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Williams, Yates3424 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

NaysCameron, Conkling, Chandler, Conness, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan,

That warrant was issued by Judge Carter, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia,

upon the complaint of Edwin M. Stanton, and charged Thomas with attempting forcibly to seize and take

possession of the War Office, in violation of the fifth section of the TenureofOffice Act. The warrant was

I, David K. Carter, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia, hereby command you to

arrest Lorenzo Thomas, of said District, forthwith, and that you have the said Lorenzo before me at the

chambers of the said Supreme Court in the City of Washington, forthwith, to answer to the charge of a high

misdemeanor in this, that on the 21st day of February, 1868, in the District of Columbia, he did unlawfully

accept the appointment of the office of Secretary of War ad interim, and did then and there unlawfully hold

and exercise and attempt to hold and exercise the said office contrary to the provisions of the act entitled "An

Act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, passed March 2, 1867, and hereof fail not, but make due

Attest: R. J. Meigs, Clerk. (Marshal's Return). Washington, D. C., February 22, 1868.

The within writ came to hand at 7 o'clock a.m. and was served by me on the said Lorenzo Thomas at 8

o'clock a.m, and I now return this writ and bring him before Chief Justice Carter at 9 o'clock a. m. of today.

Mr. Johnson, (of the Court,) asked this question of General Sherman, witness on the stand: When the

President tendered to you the office of Secretary of War, ad interim, on the 27th of January, 1868, and on the

31st of the same month and year, did he, at the very time of making such tender, state to you what his purpose

Counsel for Prosecution objected, and Mr. Drake called for the yeas and nays, which were taken, as follows:

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen,

Grimes, Henderson, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Patterson of

Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey1616 Republicans and 10

NaysCattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Harlan, Howard,

Howe, Morgan, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, Yates22all

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Cobertt, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler,

Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morton, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee,

Ross, Sherman, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey2615 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Harlan, Howard,

Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay,

The President told me that the relations between himself and Mr. Stanton, and between Mr. Stanton and the

other members of the Cabinet, were such that he could not execute the office which he filled as President of

the United States without making provision ad interim for that office; that he had the right under the law; he

claimed to have the right, and his purpose was to have the office administered in the interest of the Army and

of the Country; and he offered me the office in that view. He did not state to me then that his purpose was to

bring it to the Courts directly; but for the purpose of having the office administered properly in the interest of

the Army and the whole Country. I asked him why lawyers could not make a case, and not bring me, or any

ofcer of the Army, into the controversy. His answer was that it was found impossible, or a case could not be

made up; but, said he "if we can bring the case to the Courts, it would not stand half an hour."

Mr. Butler, of the Prosecution, objected, and after debate, General Sherman continued:

The question first asked me seemed to restrict me so close to the purpose that I endeavored to confine myself

to that point alone. On the first day, or first interview, in which the President offered me the appointment ad

interim, he confined himself to very general terms, and I gave him no definite answer. The second interview,

which was on the afternoon of the 30th, was the interview during which he made the points which 1 have

testified to. In speaking he referred to the constitutionality of the bill known as the civil tenureofoffice bill,

I think, or the tenure of civil office bill; and it was the constitutionality of that bill which he seemed desirous

of having tested, and which, he said, if it could be brought before the Supreme Court properly, would not

stand half an hour. We also spoke of force. I first stated that if Mr. Stanton would simply retire, although it

was against my interest, against my desire, against my personal wishes, and against my official wishes, I

might be willing to undertake to administer the office ad interim. Then he supposed the point was yielded;

and I made this point? "Suppose Mr. Stanton do not yield?" he answered, "Oh! he will make no objection;

you present the order and he will retire." I expressed my doubt, and he remarked. "I know him better than you

do: he is cowardly." I then begged to be excused from giving him an answer to give the subject more

reflection, and I gave him my final answer in writing. I think that letter, if you insist on knowing my views,

should come into evidence, and not parol testimony taken up; but my reasons for declining the office were

Did the President, on either of the occasions alluded to, express to you a fixed purpose or determination to

If by removal is meant a removal by force, he never conveyed to my mind such an impression; but he did

most unmistakably say that he could have no more intercourse with him in the relation of President and

I enquired, "Suppose Mr. Stanton do not yield? What then shall be done?" "Oh," said he, "there is no

necessity of considering that question. Upon the presentation of an order he will simply go away, or retire.

Did you give any opinion, or advice to the President on either of those occasions in regard to the legality or

propriety of an ad interim appointment; and if so, what advice did you give, or what opinion did you express

Mr. Bingham of the prosecution, objected, and the Chair put the question to the Senate whether it should be

answered. The Senate, without a division, refused answer to the question, and the examination of Gen.

Wednesday, April 15th. The defense offered several extracts from records of the Navy Department, to prove

the practice of the Government in cases of removal from office by different Presidents prior to Mr. Johnson.

1861. June 20. Isaac Henderson was, by direction of the President, removed from the office of Navy agent at

New York, and instructed to transfer to Paymaster John D. Gibson, of United States Navy, all the public

Dec. 26, 1851. James S. Chambers was removed from the office of Navy Agent at Philadelphia and instructed

to transfer to Paymaster A. E. Watson, U. S. Navy, all the public funds and other property in his charge.

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry,

Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of

Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbery,

Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wilson, Yates3625 Republicans

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Nye, Pomeroy,

Thursday, April 16, Mr. Walter S. Cox on the stand. The defense offered to prove:

That Mr. Cox was employed professionally by the President. in the presence of General Thomas, to take such

legal proceedings in the case that had been commenced against General Thomas as would be effectual to

raise judicially the question of Mr. Stanton's legal right to continue to hold the office of Secretary for the

Department of War against the authority of the President, and also in reference to obtaining a writ of quo

warranto for the same purpose; and we shall expect to follow up this proof by evidence of what was done by

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen,

Grimes, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New

Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle,

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Harlan, Howard, Morgan,

Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, Yates21all

So the testimony was received, and the witness proceeded to detail the steps he had taken by direction of the

President to procure a judicial determination of General Thomas' right to the office of Secretary of War and

What did you do toward getting out a writ of habeas corpus under the employment of the President.

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes,

Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morgan, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson

of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers,

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Harlan, Howard,

Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson,

When the Chief Justice announced that he would proceed as an examining Judge to investigate the case of

General Thomas, and not as holding Court, our first application to him was to adjourn the investigation into

the Criminal Court then in session, in order to have the action of that Court. After some little discussion this

request was refused. Our next effort was to have General Thomas committed to prison, in order that we might

apply to that Court for a habeas corpus, and upon his being remanded by that Court; if that should be done,

we might follow up the application by one to the Supreme Court of the United States. * * * The Chief Justice

having indicated an intention to postpone the examination, we directed General Thomas to decline giving any

bail for further appearance, and to surrender himself into custody, and announce to the Judge that he was in

custody, and then present to the Criminal Court an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Counsel on

the other side objected that General Thomas could not put himself into custody, and they did not desire that

he should be detained in custody. The Chief Judge also declared that he would not restrain General Thomas

of his liberty, and would not hold him or allow him to be held in custody. Supposing that he must be either

committed or finally discharged, we then claimed that he be discharged, not supposing that the Counsel on

the other side would consent to it, and supposing that would bring about his commitment, and that we should

then have an opportunity of getting a habeas corpus. They made no objection, however, to his final discharge,

After you had reported to the President the result of your efforts to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, did you do

any other act in pursuance of the original instructions you had received from the President on Saturday to test

the right of Mr. Stanton to continue in the office; and if so, state what the acts were?

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Howe,

Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee,

Ross, Saulsbery, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey2715 Republicans

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen,

Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams,

On the same day or the next, I prepared an information in the nature of a quo warranto. I think a delay of one

day occurred in the effort to procure certified copies of Gen. Thomas' commission as Secretary of War ad

interim, and of the order to Mr. Stanton. I then applied to the District Attorney to sign the information in the

nature of a quo warranto, and he declined to do so without instructions or a request from the President or the

Attorney General. This fact was communicated to the Attorney General and the papers were sent to him.

That the President then stated that he had issued an order for the removal of Mr. Stanton and the employment

of Mr. Thomas to perform the duties ad interim; that thereupon Mr. Perrin said, "Supposing Mr. Stanton

should oppose the order." The President replied: "There is no danger of that, for General Thomas is already in

the office." He then added: "It is only a temporary arrangement; I shall send in to the Senate at once a good

YeasBayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, and

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler,

Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont,

Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer,

Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates3736 Republicans and 1

That on this occasion (a Cabinet meeting previously mentioned), the President communicated to Mr. Welles,

and the other members of his Cabinet, before the meeting broke up, that he had removed Mr. Stanton and

appointed General Thomas Secretary of War ad interim; and that, upon the inquiry by Mr. Welles whether

General Thomas was in possession of the office, the President replied that he was, and on further question of

Welles, whether Mr. Stanton acquiesced, the President replied that he did; all that he required was time to

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler,

Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbery, Sherman,

Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey2615 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

NaysCameron, Cattell, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe,

Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart,

So the testimony was received, and the following proceeding was had Mr. Evarts, of Counsel for the

Please state, Mr. Welles, what communication was made by the President to the Cabinet on the subject of the

removal of Mr. Stanton and the appointment of General Thomas, and what passed at the time?

Mr. Welles: As I remarked, after the Departmental business had been disposed of, the President remarked, as

usual when he had anything to communicate himself, that before they separated it would be proper for him to

say that he had removed Mr. Stanton and appointed the Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas, Secretary ad

interim. I asked whether General Thomas was in possession. The President said he was; that Mr. Stanton

required some little time to remove his writings, his papers; I said, perhaps, or I asked, "Mr. Stanton, then,

Question: Now, sir, one moment to a matter which you spoke of incidentally. You were there the next

Question: Was it made out before you came there, or after, or while you were there?

* * * Question by Mr. Evarts: Did you become aware of the Tenureofoffice bill, as it is called, at or about

Question: Were you present at any Cabinet meeting at which, after the passage of that Act, it became the

Answer: Yes, on two occasions. The first occasion when it was brought before the Cabinet was on the 26th of

That the President at a meeting of the Cabinet, while the bill was before the President for his approval, laid

before the Cabinet the tenureofciviloffice bill for their consideration and advice to the President

respecting his approval of the bill: and thereupon the members of the Cabinet then present gave their advice

to the President that the bill was unconstitutional and should be returned to Congress with his objections, and

that the duty of preparing a message, setting forth the objections to the constitutionality of the bill, was

devolved on Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton; to be followed by proof as to what was done by the President and

YeasAnthony Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson,

Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers,

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry,

Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New

Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, and

That at the meetings of the Cabinet at which Mr. Stanton was present, held while the tenureofciviloffice

bill was before the President for approval, the advice of the Cabinet in regard to the same was asked by the

President and given by the Cabinet, and thereupon the question whether Mr. Stanton and the other Secretaries

who had received their appointment from Mr. Lincoln were within the restrictions upon the President's power

of removal from office created by said act was considered, and the opinion expressed that the Secretaries

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson,

Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Trumbull, Van

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole. Conness. Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghusen,

Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire,

Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, and Yates26all Republicans.

That at the Cabinet meetings between the passage of the tenureofcivil office bill and the order of the 21st

of February, 1868, for the removal of Mr. Stanton. upon occasions when the condition of the public service,

as affected by the operation of that bill, came up for the consideration and advice of the Cabinet, it was

considered by the President and Cabinet that a proper regard to the public service made it desirable that upon

some proper case a judicial determination of the constitutionality of the law should be obtained.

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson,

Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury Trumbull, Van Winkle, and

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry,

Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New

Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Williams, Wilson and

Counsel for defense put this question to witness, (Mr. Welles, then Secretary of the Navy.)

Was there, within the period embraced in the inquiry in the last question, and at any discussions or

deliberations of the Cabinet concerning the operation of the tenureofciviloffice act and the requirements

of the public service in regard to the service, any suggestion or intimation whatever touching or looking to the

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks,

Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers188

NaysCattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard,

Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay,

Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates26all Republicans.

That at the meetings of the Cabinet at which Stanton was present, held while the tenureofciviloffice bill

was before the President for approval, the advice of the Cabinet in regard to the same was asked by the

President, and given the Cabinet, and thereupon the question whether Mr. Stanton and the other Secretaries

who had received their appointments from Mr. Lincoln were within the restrictions upon the President's

power of removal from office created by said act, was considered and the opinion expressed that the

Mr. Johnson: I ask that the question propounded by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Sherman) shall now be read.

State if, after the 2d of March, 1867, the date of the passage of the tenureofoffice act, the question whether

the Secretaries appointed by President Lincoln were included within the provisions of that act came before

the Cabinet for discussion; and if so, what opinion was given on this question by members of the Cabinet to

YeasAnthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks,

Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, and

NaysCameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry,

Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New

Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, and Yates26all Republicans.

The Prosecution proposed to put in evidence the nomination of Lieutenant General Sherman, to be General

by brevet, sent to the Senate on the 13th of February, 1868, also the nomination of Major General George H.

Thomas to be Lieutenant General by brevet, and to be General by brevet, sent to the Senate on the 21st of

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted: YeasAnthony, Cole, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes,

Henderson, Morton, Ross, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Yates14all

NaysBuckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle,

Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan,

Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy,

Ramsay, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Vickers, Williams, and Wilson3526 Republicans and 9

The Ninth Article of the Impeachment was based upon alleged military changes in the City of Washington

whereby the number of troops on duty there was rumored to have been largely increased, with a view to their

use in the controversy between the President and Congress, and more especially for the expulsion of Mr.

Stanton from the War Office in case of his resistance to the order of the President for his retirement. The

wildest rumors of that character prevailedthat Mr. Johnson proposed to throw off all disguise and assume

direct military control and the establishment of practically a military dictatorship. Congress had some months

previously enacted that all military orders from the President should be issued through the General of the

Armythe Congress thereby assuming to practically abrogate a constitutional function of the Chief

There was considerable confidence among the supporters of the impeachment that they would be able to

prove these allegations by General Emory, then in local command of the troops and Department of

Washington. General Emory was called by the prosecution, and the following was his testimony.

Question: Will you have the kindness to state, as nearly as you can what took place then? (Referring to an

Answer: I will try and state the substance of it, but the words I can not undertake to state exactly. The

President asked me if I recollected a conversation he had had with me when I first took command of the

department. I told him that I recollected the facts of the conversation distinctly. He then asked me what

changes had been made. I told him no material changes, but such as had been made I could state at once. I

went on to state that in the fall six companies of the 29th infantry had been brought to this City to winter; but

as an offset to that, four companies of the 12th infantry had been detached to South Carolina on the request of

the Commander of that District; that two companies of artillery had been detached by my predecessor, one of

them for the purpose of siding in putting down the Fenian difficulties, had been returned to the command,

that although the number of companies head been increased, the numerical strength of the command was very

much the same, growing out of an order reducing the artillery and infantry companies from the maximum of

the war establishment to the minimum of the peace establishment. The President said: "I do not refer to those

changes." I replied that if he would state what changes he referred to, or who made the report of the changes,

perhaps I could be more, explicit. He said, "I refer to recent changes within a day or two," or something to

that effect. I told him I thought I could assure him that no changes had been made; that under a recent order

issued for the government of the armies of the United States, founded upon a law of Congress, all orders had

to be transmitted through General Grant to the army, and in like manner all orders coming from General

Grant to any of his subordinate officers must necessarily come, if in my department, through me; that if by

chance an order had been given to any junior officer of mine it was his duty at once to report that fact. The

President asked me. "What order do you refer to?" I replied, "To order number 17 of the series of 1867." He

said, "I would like to see the order," and a messenger was dispatched for it. At this time a gentleman came in

who I supposed had business in no way connected with the business I had in hand, and I withdrew to the

farther end of the room, and while there, the messenger came in with the book of orders and handed it to me.

As soon as the gentleman had withdrawn, I returned to the President with the book in my hand, and said I

would take it as a favor if he would permit me to call his attention to that order; that it had been passed in an

appropriation bill, and I thought it not unlikely that it had escaped his attention. He took the order and read it,

and observed, "This is not in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, that makes me

CommanderinChief, or with the terns of your commission." I replied, "That is the order which you

approved and issued to the army for our government," or something to that effect. I can not recollect the exact

words, nor do I intend to quote the exact words of the President. He said, "Am I to understand that the

President of the United States can not give an order except through the General of the Army? Or General

Grant?" I said in reply, that that was my impressionthat that was the opinion that the Army entertain, and I

thought upon that subject they were a unit. I also said, "I think it is fair, Mr. President, to say to you that when

this order came out, there was considerable discussion on the subject as to what were the obligations of an

officer under that order, and some eminent lawyers were consulted. I myself consulted oneand the opinion

was given to me decidedly and unequivocally that we were bound by the order, Constitutional or not

Constitutional. The President observed that "the object of the law was evident."

"Section 2. Be it further enacted: That the headquarters of the General of the Army of the United States shall

be at the City of Washington, and all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by the

President and Secretary of War shall be issued through the General of the Army, and in case of his inability,

through the next in rank. The General of the, Army shall not be removed, suspended, or relieved from

command or assigned to duty elsewhere than at said headquarters except at his own request WITHOUT THE

PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE SENATE; and any orders or instructions relating to Military operations

issued contrary to the requirements of this section, shall be null and void. And any officer who shall issue

orders or instructions, contrary to the provisions of this section, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in

office; and any officer of the Army who shall transmit, convey or obey any orders or instructions so issued

contrary to the provisions of this section, knowing that such orders were so issued shall be liable to

imprisonment for not less than two nor more than twenty years upon conviction thereof in any Court of

By turning to the Congressional Record of that day, it will be found that Mr. Johnson was perfectly aware of

the existence of the foregoing provision of the Act of Congress in the bill referred to, at the time he returned

the bill to the House with his signature. His reasons for so signing it are set out in the following

The act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868,

and for other purposes," contains provisions to which I must call attention. There are propositions contained

in the second section which in certain cases deprives the President of his Constitutional functions of

Commander in Chief of the Army, and in the sixth section, which denies to ten States of the Union their

Constitutional right to protect themselves in any emergency, by means of their own militia. These provisions

are out of place in an appropriation act, but I am compelled to defeat these necessary appropriations if I

withhold my signature from the act. Pressed by these considerations, I feel constrained to return the bill with

my signature, but to accompany it with my earnest protest against the section which I have indicated.

That Congress was to expire by limitation at 12 o'clock on the 4th, thirtysix hours later. If Mr. Johnson had

vetoed the bill, as under ordinary conditions it would have been his duty to the Constitution and to himself to

do, its repassage through the two Houses in that limited time would have been impossible, and the

appropriations carried by the bill for the support of the Army would have been lost. To save them Mr.

Johnson submitted to the indignity put upon him by Congress in denying him a guaranteed and manifest

Constitutional right and power. In that act Mr. Johnson illustrated a magnanimity and a consciousness of

public responsibility that was most creditible to himself, and in marked contrast to the action of Congress

A few days prior to the day set for taking the vote on the several Articles of Impeachment, and after the

conclusion of testimony, it was proposed that there be a private session for conference of the Senate on a day

named, May 11th, to give Senators an opportunity to declare themselves on the pending impeachment.

Neither the precise object or the utility of a conference were then apparent, but the result was somewhat of a

surprise to those who had, up to that time, been undoubtingly confident of the President's conviction.

Comparatively few Senators had previously declared their position. Very few, if any of the Republican

Senators had indicated a disposition to vote against any of the articles, but the silence of a number of them,

and their refusal to commit themselves even to their associates, was a source of uneasiness in Senatorial

It was taken for granted that every Democratic Senator would vote against the impeachment. But the idea was

not to be entertained that the "no" votes would extend beyond the Democratic coterie of twelve. There were,

however, anxious misgivings as to that. There was too much silencetoo much of saying nothing when so

So a session for "conference" was ordered and held, much to the surprise of gentlemen whose silence had

become somewhat oppressive, and was becoming equally painful to those who wanted a conference." It

savored of an attempt to "poll the Senate" in advance of judgment. It was resolved at the session of May 7th,

to hold a session for deliberation on the following Monday, May 11th. The most surprising development of

that session was the weakness of the bill of indictment at the very point where it was apparently

strongestthe first Article. Two conspicuous and influential SenatorsMessrs. Sherman of Ohio, and

Howe of Wisconsindeclared, and gave convincing reasons therefor, that they would not vote for the

In his remarks on this occasion, after giving a history of the enactment of the TenureofOffice law, the first

section of which specifically excepts from its operation such members of Mr. Johnson's Cabinet as had been

appointed by Mr. Lincoln and still remaining, though not recommissioned by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Sherman

I can only say as one of the Senate conferees, under the solemn obligations that now rest upon us in

construing this Act, that I did not understand it to include members of the Cabinet not appointed by the

President, and that it was with extreme reluctance and only to secure the passage of the bill that, in the face of

the votes of the Senate I agreed to the report LIMITING AT ALL the power of the President to remove heads

of Departments. * * * I stated explicitly that the Act as reported did not protect from removal the members of

the Cabinet appointed by Mr. Lincoln, that President Johnson might remove them at his pleasure; and I

named the Secretary of war as one that might be removed. * * * I could not conceive a case where the Senate

would require the President to perform his great executive office upon the advice and through heads of

Departments personally obnoxious to him, and whom he had not appointed, and, therefore, no such case was

provided for. * * * Can I pronounce the President guilty of crime, and by that vote aid to remove him from

his high office for doing what I declared and still believe he had a legal right to do. God forbid: * * * What

the President did do in the removal of Mr. Stanton he did under a power which you repeatedly refused to take

from the office of the Presidenta power that has been held by that officer since the formation of the

Government. and is now limited only by the words of an Act, the literal construction of which does not

include Mr. Stanton. * * * It follows, that as Mr. Stanton is not protected by the TenureofCivilOffice Act,

his removal rests upon the Act of 1789, and he according to the terms of that Act and of the commission held

by him, and in compliance with the numerous precedents cited in this cause, was lawfully removed by the

President, and his removal not being contrary to the provisions of the Act of March 2nd 1867, the 1st, 4th,

If Mr. Stanton had been appointed during the present Presidential term. I should have no doubt he was within

the security of the law. But I cannot find that, either in fact or in legal intendment, he was appointed during

the present Presidential term. It is urged that he was appointed by Mr. Lincoln, and such is the fact. It is said

that Mr. Lincoln's term is not yet expired. Such I believe to be the fact. But the language of the proviso is,

that a Secretary shall hold not during the term of MAN by whom he is appointed, but during the TERM of the

PRESIDENT by whom he may be appointed. Mr. Stanton was appointed by the President in 1862. The term

of that President was limited by the Constitution. It expired on the 4th of March, 1865. That the same

incumbent was reelected for the next term is conceded, but I do not comprehend how that fact extended the

Entertaining these views, and because the first Article of the Impeachment charges the order of removal as a

violation of the TenureofOffice Act, I am constrained to hold the President not guilty upon that Article.

These declarations, coming from two gentlemen of distinction and influence in the party councils, both of

whom Had actively participated in framing the TenureofOffice Act, became at once the occasion of

genuine and profound surprise, and it is unnecessary to say that they tended largely to strengthen the doubts

entertained by others as to the sufficiency of all the other allegations of the indictment. They naturally and

logically reasoned that the removal of Mr. Stanton, set out in the first Article, constituted, in effect, the

essence of the indictment, and that all that followed, (save the 10th Article was more in the nature of

specifications, or a bill of particulars, than otherwisethat if no impeachable offense were set out in the first

Article, then none was committed, as that Article constituted the substructure of all the restits essence and

logic running through and permeating practically alland that without that Article, there was no coherence

or force in any of them, and consequently nothing charged against the President that was impeachable, as he

had not violated the TenureofOffice law, and was not charged with the violation of any other law.

That conference developed, further, that a large majority of the Articles of Impeachment were objectionable

Mr. Edmunds would not support the 4th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Articles, being "wholly unsustained by proof," but

Mr. Morrill of Vermont, would not support the 4th, 6th, 9th, or 10th Articles, as they were unproven.

Mr. Morrill, of Maine, Mr. Yates, Mr. Harlan, and Mr. Stewart, would vote to convict on the Articles relating

Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Grimes, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Trumbull, and Mr. Van Winkle, each declared,

at that conference, their opposition to the entire list of the Articles of Impeachment.

But eighteen Republicans committed themselves at that conference, for conviction, out of twentyfour who

filed opinions. While it was taken for granted that the six Democrats who had failed to declare their position

at that conference would oppose conviction, the position of the eighteen Republicans who had failed to

declare themselves became at once a source of very grave concern in impeachment circles. Out of that list of

eighteen uncommitted Republicans, but one vote was necessary to defeat the impeachment. This condition

was still farther intensified by the fact that eight of the eleven Articles of Impeachment were already beaten

in that conference, and practically by Republican committals, and among them the head and front and

foundation of the indictmentthe First Articleby Messrs. Sherman and Howe, two conspicuous

A forecast of the vote based on these committals as to the several Articles, would be against the First Article,

twelve Democrats and eight Republicans, one more than necessary for its defeatthe eight "not guilty" votes

Against the Fourth Articletwelve Democrats and nine Republicansincluding Messrs. Edmunds, Ferry,

Against the Fifth Articletwelve Democrats and eight Republicansincluding Messrs. Edmunds and Ferry.

Against the Sixth Articletwelve Democrats and nine Republicansincluding Messrs. Ferry, Howe, and

Against the SeventhArticletwelve Democrats and seven Republicansincluding Mr. Ferry.

Against the Eighth Articletwelve Democrats and seven Republicansincluding Mr. Edmunds.

Against the Ninth Articletwelve Democrats and twelve Republicansincluding Messrs. Sherman,

Against the Tenth Articletwelve Democrats and ten Republicansincluding Messrs. Edmunds, Sherman,

It is somewhat conspicuous that but three gentlemenMessrs. Sumner, Pomeroy, and Tipton, in their

arguments in the Conference, pronounced the President guilty on all the chargesthough five others,

Messrs. Wilson, Patterson of New Hampshire, Frelinghuysen, Cattell, and Williams, pronounced the

President guilty on general principles, without specification; and Messrs. Morrill of Maine, Yates and

Stewart, guilty in the removal of Mr. Stanton, without further specification of charges.

As but one vote, in addition to the twelve Democratic and the six Republican votes pledged against

conviction at the Conference, was necessary to defeat impeachment on the three remaining Articlesthe

2nd, 3rd, and 11thand as nearly a half of the Republicans of the Senate had failed to commit themselves, at

least in any public way, the anxiety of the advocates of Impeachment became at once, and naturally, very

grave. How many of the eighteen Republicans who had failed to declare themselves at that Conference might

fail to sustain the Impeachment, became, therefore, a matter of active solicitude on all sides, especially in

impeachment circles in and out of the Senate. Republican committals in the Conference had rendered

absolutely certain the defeat of every Article of the Impeachment except the Second, Third, and Eleventh, and

the addition of but a single vote from the eighteen uncommitted Republicans to the "No" side, would defeat

It was under this unfavorable condition of the Impeachment cause, that the Senate assembled on May 16th,

1868, for the purpose of taking final action on the indictment brought by the House of Representatives, the

trial of which had occupied the most of the time of the Senate for the previous three months, and which had

to a large degree engrossed the attention of the general public, to the interruption of legislation pending in the

two Houses of Congress, and more or less to the embarrassment of the commercial activities of the country.

For the first time in the history of the government, practically eighty years, the President of the United States

was at the bar of the Senate, by virtue of a constitutional warrant, on an accusation of the House of

Representatives of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and his conviction and expulsion from office

demanded in the name of all the people. No event in the civil history of the country had ever before occurred

to so arouse public antipathies and public indignation against any manand these conditions found special

vent in the City of Washington, as the Capitol of the Nation, as it had become during the trial the focal point

of the politically dissatisfied element of the entire country. Its streets and all its places of gathering had

swarmed for many weeks with representatives of every State of the Union, demanding in a practically united

On numbers of occasions during the previous history of the Government there had been heated controversies

between the Congress and the Executive, but never before characterized by the intensity, not infrequently

malevolence, that had come to mark this and never before had a division between the Executive and the

Congress reached a point at which a suggestion of his constitutional ostracism from office had been seriously

But it had now come. The active, intense interest of the country was aroused, and everywhere the division

among the people was sharply defined and keen, though the numerical preponderance, it cannot be denied,

The dominant party of the country was aroused and active for the deposition of the President. Public meetings

were held throughout the North and resolutions adopted and forwarded to Senators demanding that Mr.

Johnson be promptly expelled from office by the Senateand it had become apparent, long before the taking

of the vote, that absolute, swift, and ignominious expulsion from office awaited every Republican Senator

Under these conditions it was but natural that during the trial, and especially as the close approached, the

streets of Washington and the lobbies of the Capitol were thronged from day to day with interested spectators

from every section of the Union, or that Senators were beleaguered day and night, by interested constituents,

for some word of encouragement that a change was about to come of that day's proceeding, and with threats

of popular vengeance upon the failure of any Republican Senator to second that demand.

In view of this intensity of public interest it was as a matter of course that the coming of the day when the

great controversy was expected to be brought to a close by the deposition of Mr. Johnson and the seating of a

new incumbent in the Presidential chair, brought to the Capitol an additional throng which long before the

hour for the assembling of the Senate filled all the available space in the vast building, to witness the

Upon the closing of the hearingeven prior thereto, and again during the few days of recess that followed,

the Senate had been carefully polled, and the prospective vote of every member from whom it was possible to

procure a committal, ascertained and registered in many a private memoranda. There were fiftyfour

membersall present. According to these memoranda, the vote would stand eighteen for acquittal,

thirtyfive for convictionone less than the number required by the Constitution to convict. What that one

vote would be, and could it be had, were anxious queries, of one to another, especially among those who had

set on foot the impeachment enterprise and staked their future control of the government upon its success.

Given for conviction and upon sufficient proofs, the President MUST step down and out of his place, the

highest and most honorable and honoring in dignity and sacredness of trust in the constitution of human

government, a disgraced man and a political pariah. If so cast upon insufficient proofs or from partisan

considerations, the office of President of the United States would be degradedcease to be a coordinate

branch of the Government, and ever after subordinated to the legislative will. It would have practically

revolutionized our splendid political fabric into a partisan Congressional autocracy. Apolitical tragedy was

On the other hand, that vote properly given for acquittal, would at once free the Presidential office from

imputed dishonor and strengthen our triple organization and distribution of powers and responsibilities. It

would preserve the even tenor and courses of administration, and effectively impress upon the world a

conviction of the strength and grandeur of Republican institutions in the hands of a free and enlightened

The occasion was sublimely and intensely dramatic. The President of the United States was on trial. The

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was presiding over the deliberations of the Senate sitting for the trial of

the great cause. The board of management conducting the prosecution brought by the House of

Representatives was a body of able and illustrious politicians and statesmen. The President's counsel,

comprising jurists among the most eminent of the country, had summed up for the defense and were awaiting

final judgment. The Senate, transformed for the occasion into an extraordinary judicial tribunal, the highest

known to our laws, the Senators at once judges and jurors with power to enforce testimony and sworn to hear

The organization of the court had been severely Democratic. There were none of the usual accompaniments

of royalty or exclusivism considered essential under aristocratic forms to impress the people with the dignity

and gravity of a great occasion. None of these were necessary, for every spectator was an intensely interested

witness to the proceeding, who must bear each for himself, the public consequences of the verdict, whatever

The venerable Chief Justice, who had so ably and impartially presided through the many tedious weeks of the

The impressive dignity of the occasion was such that there was little need of the admonition of the Chief

Justice to abstention from conversation on the part of the audience during the proceeding. No one there

present, whether friend or opponent of the President, could have failed to be impressed with the tremendous

consequences of the possible result of the prosecution about to be reached. The balances were apparently at a

poise. It was plain that a single vote would be sufficient to turn the scales either wayto evict the President

from his great office to go the balance of his life's journey with the brand of infamy upon his brow, or be

relieved at once from the obloquy the inquisitors had sought to put upon himand more than all else, to keep

the honorable roll of American Presidents unsmirched before the world, despite the action of the House.

The first vote was on the Eleventh and last Article of the Impeachment. Senators voted in alphabetical order,

and each arose and stood at his desk as his name was called by the Chief Clerk. To each the Chief Justice

propounded the solemn interrogatory"Mr. Senator, how say youis the respondent, Andrew Johnson,

President of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanor as charged in this Article?"

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, was the first of Republican Senators to vote "Not Guilty." He had long been a safe

and trusted leader in the Senate, and had the unquestioning confidence of his partisan colleagues, while his

long experience in public life, and his great ability as a legislator, and more especially his exalted personal

character, had won for him the admiration of all his associates regardless of political affiliations. Being the

first of the dissenting Republicans to vote, the influence of his action was feared by the impeachers, and most

strenuous efforts had been made to induce him to retract the position he had taken to vote against conviction.

But being moved on this occasion, as he had always been on others, to act upon his own judgment and

conviction, though foreseeing that this vote would probably end a long career of conspicuous public

usefulness, there was no sign of hesitancy or weakness as he pronounced his verdict.

Mr. Fowler, of Tennessee, was the next Republican to vote "Not Guilty." He had entered the Senate but two

years before, and was therefore one of the youngest Senators, with the promise of a life of political usefulness

before him. Though from the same State as the President, they were at political variance, and there was but

little in common between them in other respects. A radical partisan in all measures where radical action

seemed to be called for, he was for the time being sitting in a judicial capacity and under an oath to do justice

to the accused according to the law and the evidence. As in his judgment the evidence did not sustain the

Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, was the third antiimpeaching Republican to vote. He had for many years been a

conspicuous and deservedly influential member of the Senate. For some days prior to the taking of the vote

he had been stricken with what afterwards proved a fatal illness. The scene presented as he rose to his feet

supported on the arms of his colleagues, was grandly heroic, and one never before witnessed in a legislative

chamber. Though realizing the danger he thus incurred, and conscious of the political doom that would

follow his vote, and having little sympathy with the policies pursued by the President, he had permitted

himself to be borne to the Senate chamber that he might contribute to save his country from what he deemed

the stain of a partisan and unsustained impeachment of its Chief Magistrate. Men often perform, in the

excitement and glamour of battle, great deeds of valor and self sacrifice that live after them and link their

names with the honorable history of great events, but to deliberately face at once inevitable political as well

as physical death in the council hall, and in the absence of charging squadrons; and shot and shell, and of the

glamor of military heroism, is to illustrate the grandest phase of human courage and devotion to convictions.

That was the part performed by Mr. Grimes on that occasion. His vote of "Not Guilty" was the last, the

Mr. Henderson of Missouri, was the fourth Republican Senator to vote against the impeachment. A

gentleman of rare industry and ability, and a careful, conscientious legislator, he had been identified with the

legislation of the time and had reached a position of deserved prominence and influence. But he was learned

in the law, and regardful of his position as a just and discriminating judge. Though then a young man with a

brilliant future before him, he had sworn to do justice to Andrew Johnson "according to the Constitution and

law," and his verdict of "Not Guilty" was given with the same deliberate emphasis that characterized all his

Mr. Ross, of Kansas, was the fifth Republican Senator to vote "Not Guilty." Representing an intensely

Radical constituencyentering the Senate but a few months after the close of a three years enlistment in the

Union Army and not unnaturally imbued with the extreme partisan views and prejudices against Mr. Johnson

then prevailinghis predilections were sharply against the President, and his vote was counted upon

accordingly. But he had sworn to judge the defendant not by his political or personal prejudices, but by the

facts elicited in the investigation. In his judgment those facts did not sustain the charge.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, was the sixth Republican Senator to vote against the Impeachment. He had been

many years in the Senate. In all ways a safe legislator and counsellor, he had attained a position of

conspicuous usefulness. But he did not belong to the legislative autocracy which then assumed to rule the two

Houses of Congress. To him the Impeachment was a question of proof of charges brought, and not of party

politics or policies. He was one of the great lawyers of the body, and believed that law was the essence of

justice and not an engine of wrong, or an instrumentality for the satisfaction of partisan vengeance. He had no

especial friendship for Mr. Johnson, but to him the differences between the President and Congress did not

comprise an impeachable offense. A profound lawyer and clear headed politician and statesman,, his known

Mr. Van Winkle, of West Virginia, was the seventh and last Republican Senator to vote against the

Impeachment. Methodical and deliberate, he was not hasty in reaching the conclusion he did, but after giving

the subject and the testimony most careful and thorough investigation, he was forced to the conclusion that

the accusation brought by the House of Representatives had not been sustained, and had the courage of an

GuiltyAnthony, Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds,

Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morton, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Nye,

Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Thayer, Wade,

Not GuiltyBayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks,

Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers.

The defeat of the Eleventh Article was the second official setback to the Impeachment movementthe first

being the practical abandonment of the First Article by the change in the order of voting.

The vote had been taken on what its friends seemed to consider its strongest proposition; the Eleventh Article

having been so framed as to group the substance, practically, of all the pending ten Articles. The impeachers

had staked their cause upon that Article, and lost. They seemed not to have contemplated the possibility of its

defeat. So confident were they of its success, in which event it would be immaterial what became of the other

Articles, that they apparently had agreed upon no order of procedure after that should have been defeated.

They were in the condition of a flock of game into which the sportsman had fired a shot and broken its ranks.

They were dazed, and for a moment seemed not to know what next to do, or which way to turn. They did not

dare now go back to the fated First Article, according to the program agreed upon, as Mr. Sherman and Mr.

Howe had demonstrated its weakness, and they were fearful of going to the Second or Third, as in the then

temper of the antiimpeachers it was manifest there would be little hope for either of them, and the other

eight had been already beaten without a vote, at the conference previously held, and by Republican

The Chief Justice ordered the reading of the First Article, according to the order agreed upon, but before that

could begin, apparently to gain time for recovery, Mr. Williams moved that the Senate take a recess of fifteen

The Chief Justice again ordered the reading of the First Article, but again, before the clerk could begin the

reading, Mr. Williams intervened to move an adjournment to Tuesday, the 26th day of the month.

After numerous conflicting motions relating to the date of the proposed reassembling, and several roll calls

thereon, the antiimpeachers generally insisting on proceeding at once to vote on the other articles of

Of course the purpose, and the only purpose then apparent, of that adjournment, was to gain time, apparently

The supposably strongest count of the indictment having been beaten, it was apparent that it would be folly to

hazard a vote on any other at that time. There was a possibility that changes might occur in the personnel of

the Senate in the interim. As but one article had been put to vote, and as that was beaten by the lack of a

single vote, there seemed a further possibility that influences could be brought to bear, through the industry of

the House, as was very soon after developed, to secure the support of an antiimpeaching Senator on at least

one of the articles of impeachment yet to be voted upon. A vacancy in the ranks of the antiimpeaching

Republicans to be filled by an impeaching appointee might happen. Many contingencies were possible during

the next ten days for a reversal of the action of the Senate just had. At all events, everything would be

hazarded by permitting further immediate action, while the situation could be rendered no worse by delay,

and time and other mollifying conditions and influences might bring changes more promising of success.

The antiimpeachment Republicans had not long to wait for the development of the purpose of the recess, at

least so far its supporters in the House were concerned. Immediately upon the adjournment of the Senate, the

Mr. Bingham: I have been directed by the Managers on the part of the House of Representatives, in the matter

of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, to report the following preamble and resolutions for consideration at

Whereas, information has come to the Managers which seems to them to furnish probable cause to believe

that improper or corrupt means have been used to influence the determination of the Senate upon the Articles

of Impeachment submitted to the Senate by the House of Representatives against the President of the United

Be it Resolved, That for the further and more efficient prosecution of the Impeachment of the President, the

Managers be directed and instructed to summon and examine witnesses under oath, to send for persons and

papers, and employ a stenographer, and appoint subcommittee to take testimony; the expense thereof to be

This resolution was immediately and without debate adopted by a vote of 88 to 14. It would be stating it

mildly to say that the House was in a tumult. The Republican leaders were wild with rage. They had selected

for the first vote what they deemed the strongest point in their indictment, and lost; and their vengeance now

turned upon those Republican Senators who had failed to support them. Hence the adjournment of the Senate

for ten days to afford them time to discipline the recusants and force an additional vote for conviction on the

The conspicuous indelicacy of this move was twofold: 1st, in that the House proposed to investigate the

action of a coordinate branch of Congress: and 2nd, that the trial not being concluded, it had to a pointed

degree the appearance of an attempt to intimidate Senators who had voted against conviction into changing

their votes at the next ballot in fear of an inquisition for alleged corruption. In that sense it was an act of

intimidationa warning. It was an illdisguised threat and a most unseemly proceedingyet there was not

one among the supporters of the Impeachment to condemn it, and few who failed openly to justify it. Partisan

rancor and personal and political hostility to the President had reached a point that condoned this indelicacy

of the House towards the Senate, and justified the public assault upon the dissenting Republican Senators,

The demand for adjournment and delay seemed to have been understood by the impeaching majority of the

Senate, and was of course promptly granted and further voting postponed, and the Senate adjourned to May

The next ten day were days of unrestof anxiety to all who were involved or in any way interested in the

impeachment proceeding. While the result of the 16th gave hope and comfort to the opponents of

impeachment, it caused little or no perceptible discouragement to its more radical friends. They were more

active and persistent than ever. The footsteps of the antiimpeaching Republicans were dogged from the

day's beginning to its end and far into the night, with entreaties, considerations and threats, in the hope of

securing a reversal of the result of the 16th. The partisan press of the States represented by the

antiimpeaching Republicans came daily filled with vigorous animadversions upon their action, and not a

few threats of violence upon their return to their constituents. But it was in vain.

The Senate reassembled on the 26th of May to complete the vote on the articles of impeachment. After the

usual preliminary proceedings, Mr. Williams moved to begin the voting on the Second Article, which was

had with the same result as on the 11thand then the Third, and still with the same result. It then became

manifest that it was useless to go farther, as all the balance had been rendered certain of defeat, and by still

more decisive votesa considerable number of those so far voting for impeachment having committed

themselves in the previous conference against all the balance. So, to save themselves from being forced to

vote against impeachment on any of the articles, there was a unanimous vote of the impeachers to abandon

the case and adjournand with it went glimmering the visions of office, and spoils, and the riotous assaults

on the public treasury that had for months been organizing for the day when Mr. Johnson should be put out

An analysis of the Eleventh, Article shows. that it comprised four distinct counts, or accusations.

FirstThat Mr. Johnson had said that the ThirtyNinth Congress was not a Congress of the United States,

but a Congress of only part of the States, and therefore had no power to propose amendments the

The latter clause of this accusation was the only portion of the first count that received any consideration

during the trial, and the only testimony brought in its support was the ParsonsJohnson telegraphic

In that dispatch, referring to then pending Constitutional amendment (the 14th) Mr. Johnson referred to

Congress as "a set of individuals." Mr. Manager Boutwell declared this expression to be "the gist of the

Counsel for defense objected to this testimony, but it was received by a vote of yeas twentyseven, nays

As the Fourteenth Amendment was not declared adopted or a part of the Constitution for more than a year

after the transmission of that dispatch, and as the Constitution of the United States prohibits any abridgment

of the freedom of speech, and as this remark was unaccompanied by any act in violation of law, it is difficult

to see how it could be construed into an impeachable offense. Moreover, saying nothing of the good taste or

propriety of that dispatch, Mr. Johnson was opposed to the proposed amendment, and had the same right to

oppose it, or to characterize it or the members of Congress favoring it, as had any private citizen, or as had

the members of Congress to characterize his action in the premises, without being called to account therefor.

Violation of the TenureofOffice Act of March 2nd, 1867, in seeking to prevent the resumption by Mr.

This clause had been very effectually disposed of by Messrs. Sherman and Howe several days before the vote

was taken on the Eleventh Article, when they pointed out the fact that the language cage of the first section of

the TenureofOffice Act clearly excepted, and was intended by the Senate, to except Mr. Stanton and all

other persons then in Mr. Johnson's Cabinet who had been originally appointed by Mr. Lincoln and were still

holding over under Mr. Johnson without having been recommissioned by him; and that Mr. Johnson had

And so convincing had been the argument of those gentlemen at that time, that there was unanimous consent

on the pro impeachment side of the Senate, on two different occasions, to set aside the First Article, of

which the alleged unlawful attempt to remove Mr. Stanton was practically the principal accusation. Not

illogically, that unanimous consent to abandon the First article by thus setting it aside, and afterwards

refusing to put it to a vote, may be said to have been equivalent to a vote of its insufficiency.

It is pertinent to suggest here that the President believed the TenureofOffice Act to be unconstitutional, as

it was clearly an attempted abridgment of his power over his Cabinet which had never before been questioned

by Congress. The only method left him for the determination of that question was in the course he took,

except by an agreed case, but it is manifest from the record that no such agreement could be had, as an effort

thereto was made in the Thomas case in the District Court, but failed, the prosecution withdrawing the case at

Attempting to prevent the execution of the Army appropriation Act of March 2nd, 1867.

The means specified in this alleged attempt was the appointment of Mr. Edward Cooper to be Assistant

Secretary of the Treasury, with power to draw warrants on the Treasury without the consent of the

Secretarythe purpose being to show that, with General Thomas acting as Secretary of War, and Mr.

Cooper as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to honor General Thomas' drafts, and thus, in control of

expenditures for the support of the Army, a conspiracy was sought to be proven whereby the President

intended and expected to defeat the Reconstruction Acts of Congress by preventing the use of the Army for

The Managers are requested to say whether they propose to show whether Mr. Cooper was appointed by the

President in November, 1867, as a means to obtain unlawful possession of the public money, other than by

That the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power, by appointment under his hand and official seal, to

delegate to one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury authority to sign in his stead all warrants for the

payment of money into the public Treasury and all warrants for the disbursments from the public Treasury of

money certified by the accounting officers of the Treasury to be due upon accounts duly audited and settle by

them; and such warrants signed shall be in all cases of the same validity as if they had been signed by the

Mr. William E. Chandler, who had been Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, was on the witness stand, called

by the prosecution. Mr. Butler asked whether it was the practice of the Assistant Secretary to act as Secretary

Answer: I am not certain that it is, without his appointment as Acting Secretary by the President.

1stHas it been the practice, since the passage of the law, for an Assistant Secretary to sign warrants unless

2ndHas any Assistant Secretary been authorized to sign any warrants except such as are specified in the

It has not been the practice for any Assistant Secretary since the passage of the Act to sign warrants except

upon an appointment by the Secretary for that purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Immediately upon the passage of the Act, the Secretary authorized one of his Assistant Secretaries to sign

warrants of the character described in the Act, and they have been customarily signed by that Assistant

No Assistant Secretary has been authorized to sign warrants except such as are specified in this Act, unless

That disposed of the third count in the Eleventh Article, and the testimony was rejected by a vote of yeas 22,

These answers to tire interrogatories seemed to prove the reverse of what the Prosecution had expected. The

As to the Fourth count of the Eleventh Article, that Mr. Johnson sought to prevent the execution of the "Act

to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March 2nd, 1867, by the removal of

Mr. Stanton from the War Office, the proceedings of the trial disclose no testimony of a sufficiently direct

character for specification, except, possibly, a number of speeches delivered at different points by Mr.

Johnson, which are set out in the Tenth Article of the Impeachment. As that Article was by unanimous

consent abandoned and never put to vote, all its allegations logically fell as unproven.

There was, therefore, no force and little coherency in the Eleventh Article. It fell of its own weight. Every one

of its several averments had been disproven, or at least not proven. It was to a good degree a summing

upan aggregation, of the entire bill of indictment on the several distinct forms of offenses chargeda

The entire impeachment scheme was in reality beaten by the vote on that Article, and the adjournment of ten

days then taken could have been only in the hope on the part of the majority that ultimate success on some

one of the remaining Articles could be made possible, in some way, legitimate or otherwise, in part by the

importunate throng of visitors to the Capitol who were vociferously and vindictively urging Mr. Johnson's

removal largely for reasons personal to themselvesbut more especially through the efforts of the House of

Representatives to discipline one or more of the antiimpeaching Republicans of the Senate.

The allegation of the Second Article, put to vote on the 26th, and beaten by the same vote as was the

Eleventh, was a corollary of the Firstviolation of the TenureofOffice Act in the appointment of General

Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim, WITHOUT THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE.

This was the first declaration ever made in the Senate that an ad interim or merely temporary appointment to

fill a vacancy, required confirmation by that body. The power to make such an appointment is so clearly

possessed by the President without consultation of the Senatehad been so uniformly exercised by every

preceding President without question, that argument on that point would be superfluous.

In reality the essence of the Second Article, as of the First, was the removal of Mr. Stanton. If the President

could remove him without the consent of the Senate, which was clearly established in the debate in the

conference by Messrs. Sherman and Howe, the way was clear for the appointment of an act interim Secretary,

to the end that the office be filled until such time as the President would be prepared to refill the place with a

Secretary on consultation with the Senate. That was the very thing he attempted to do on the 22nd of

February, the day after Mr. Stanton's removal, when he sent to the Senate the nomination of Thomas Ewing,

The Third Article was so closely analagous to the Second, that an analysis of it would be in the nature of

repetition. If there were any distinctions between them, they were so finely drawn that they amounted simply

to a distinction without a differencea characteristic, indeed, of a large part of the eleven Articles of

Impeachmenta characteristic so conspicuous that it was not deemed worth while by the majority to go

These three Articlesthe Second, Third and Eleventhbeing the only Articles of the entire list of eleven

put to a vote, and having been taken up and passed upon out of their numerical but in the order of their

supposed availabilitymust therefore be regarded as confessedly the strongest and most likely of the entire

list to command the support of the Senate. They were selected and set out. for the test. That selection was

equivalent to saying, "we put the Impeachment cause to test on these three Articles. If they fail, we have

They were put to test and failed. They failed because of their innate weakness. Failed because they proved

nothing. Failed because not a single allegation of the entire indictment was or could be proven or tortured into

all impeachable offense. Not a remark made by the President or an act performed in all the long and bitter

controversy that. had subsisted between himself and Congress could be brought nearer to the impeachment

mark, in fact, few if any of them so near, as had been the every day rule in the House of Representatives

during the previous two years in their treatment of the President. Yet nobody thought of impeaching members

Bill after bill had been offered in Congress, and law after law enacted, with apparently the sole purpose of

hampering the Constitutional authority apparently functions of the Presidenteven the assumption of

Executive powers and judicial functions by Congressthe not remote purpose of which seemed to be his

entrapment into some measure of resistance upon which could be based an indictment. The House seemed to

be literally "lying in wait" for him, with traps set on every side for his ensnarement.

At last, after two years of this sort of scheming and impatient and anxious waiting, the opportunity seemed to

have offered in the alleged violation of the TenureofOffice Act. The fosterers of the impeachment crusade,

weary with their long vigil and growing desperate with every additional day's delay, clutched at the new turn

of affairs like a drowning man at a floating straw, and with the avidity of a starved gudgeon at a painted fly.

It was not strange that this sort of diplomacy, developed and exposed as it was in the Senate, in spite of the

unfair and partisan maneuvering of the prosecution to prevent it, should have reacted, and contributed to turn

against the impeachment movement gentlemen who entered upon the investigation under oath to give Mr.

Johnson a fair, nonpartisan trial. The only surprise was that, after the exposure of the malignant partisan

spirit that sat in judgment upon Mr. Johnson, and the utter and absolute failure to prove any violation of law

on his part, but on the contrary, a determination to preserve from infringement the functions of his office and

prevent a revolution from fundamental political forms by the absorption of the Executive authority by the

legislative branch of the governmentthat even a majority, and more especially, that nearly twothirds of

This record will serve to explain the omission to vote on the First ArticleMessrs. Sherman and Howe being

precluded from supporting it in consequence of the position taken by them in the controversy between the

two Houses of Congress over the first section of the TenureofOffice Bill while that bill was pending, and

to avoid defeat on the first vote taken, which was inevitable on that Articleand also to explain, so far as

any explanation is possible, the zigzag method of conducting the ballotskipping all the first ten Articles

and going down to the bottom of the list for the first vote, with the promise of then going back to the first

Article and continuing to the end. but, instead, skipping that for the second time, and starting in again on the

Of course, the natural effect of this battledore and shuttle cock method of treating so grave a matter as an

impeachment of the President of the United States, added to the effect of the manifest unfairness of the

majority in their treatment of testimony offered in the President's defensewas to disgust some who

doubtless entered upon the trial honestly inclined to vote for Andrew Johnson's impeachment, but wanted it

done fairly and openly, without any suppression of pertinent testimony or juggling for a verdictand

amusing to others, who viewed it as proof of weakness in the indictment, and of misgiving as to the result on

To still others it was more than that. It was not only an indication of weakness, but of a determination to take

every possible advantage, fair and unfair, to save votes for conviction. The impeachers not unnaturally feared

the effect of the defeat of the First Article by the nay votes of Messrs. Sherman and Howe, and probably

other Republicans, which was certain to follow the submission of that Article to a vote. Its only allegation

was the unlawful removal of Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War in violation of the

TenureofOffice Act. That alleged offense was repeated in varied but more or less specific forms, in every

succeeding Article of the Impeachment except the Tenth, and constituted the sum and substancethe

gravamenof the entire indictment. It was the basis upon which the impeachment superstructure had been

erected. Without that Article there was not only no foundation, but no coherence in the recital of Mr.

Johnson's alleged offenses, and when that fell by its abandonment, the entire impeachment scheme fell with

itas, if there were nothing in the First Article on which to hang an impeachment, there could be nothing in

those that followed and were but an amplificationa mere exploitationof the First.

In substantiation of this view of the First Article, the declaration of Mr. Boutwell to that effect is here

inserted. Mr. Boutwell was chairman of the committee of the House appointed to prepare the Articles of

Impeachment upon which Mr. Johnson was tried. On his report of these Articles to the House he said, after

The other Articles are based upon facts which are of public knowledge, growing out of the attempt of the

President to remove Secretary Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War.

That is, that the basis of the entire accusation was the alleged violation of the TenureofOffice Act in the

So, after taking the vote on the Second and Third Articles and their defeat by the same vote as that on the

Eleventh, it became manifest that further effort to the impeachment of the president on any of the remaining

eight Articles would be useless, and Mr. Williams moved that the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment,

YeasAnthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry,

Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of

New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Van Winkle,

NaysBayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery,

Every Senator present who had voted for conviction voted to abandon the prosecution and end the trial, and

every Senator present who had voted against conviction, voted to continue and go through the indictment.

Of course, it was useless to go farther with any hope of success, as, it will be seen by this record, all the

remaining Articles were dead, beaten in caucus before the voting commenced, and by the professed friends

Possibly it was the anticipation of this effect of the abandonment of the First Article, that was the "sickness"

to which Mr. Edmunds, at the outset of the voting, ten days before, ascribed the peculiar order of taking the

It is not intended to aver that there was any privity or concert in this particular manipulationyet it is

suggestive. The Impeachment had been dragging since the 22nd of February, to May 26thmore than three

months,and had been everywhere the engrossing topic of the time. It was becoming tiresomenot only to

Notwithstanding the City of Washington was still filled with people who had been waiting weary weeks and

months for the deposition of Mr. Johnson and the accession of Mr. Wade to the Presidency, for the fulfillment

of pledges of appointment based thereon, and who were still importunate for impeachment, the business

element of the country at large was tiring of it and its depressing effect upon the commercial activities. Even

Senators and Congressmen were being moved to a sense of the obstructive and somewhat ridiculous phases

the impeachment movement was beginning to take onand not a few of those who in its earlier stages had

honestly favored the movement, inside as well as outside the membership of both Houses of Congress, had

begun to realize the actual nature and purposes, as also the shallowness of the impeachment movement that

from whatever motives it had originated, it had degenerated very much into a game of personal ambitionof

While some of its supporters who had manifestly entered upon the trial with a determination to convict, were

still insistent for further prosecution had there been a shadow of ultimate success, there were others who had

begun to realize, weeks before the end came, the awkwardness of the predicament in which they had allowed

The strain was becoming too greatthere was certain to be a recoil sooner or later. The foundations of the

Impeachment were shown to be too slender. There was a future ahead that must be faced, but Senators must

preserve their consistency. They could not go before their proimpeachment constituencies with a record

indicating any degree of weakening in the impeachment crusade. They had insisted for months that Mr.

So the plan of "desultory" procedure herein outlined seems to have "happened"whether by design or

otherwise, is immaterialand that plan was made easy by the concerted abandonment of the head and front

of the indictmentthe First Articlewhich was sidetracked and logically carried with it all that followed,

as would manifestly have been the result if the voting had begun on that Article.

While, to degree, the turmoils and bitterness of that time have passed out of public mind, there are still many

living who retain a keen remembrance of the struggle and the enmities it produced. There were during the

trial many thousands of men in the City of Washington awaiting the Impeachment and removal of the

President for the fulfillment of pledges of official appointment based thereon, and their numbers increased as

These anticipated beneficiaries were naturally not idle in efforts to the stimulation of zeal in the cause of

Impeachment, and Senators were importuned at all seasonable and unseasonable hours in behalf of immediate

and positive action. The lively anxiety, even anxious haste, of these patriots for their earliest possible entry

upon the service of the Government, was emphasized on every corner and at every place of gathering, day

and night, and the lobbies of the Capitol were thronged by them during the sessions of the Senate. No

opportunity for a word with a Senator in behalf of the immediate deposition of the President, nor any

appliance that seemed to promise a successful overture, was overlooked or forgotten.

When these seemed to fail of the desired effect, more direct and, it was hoped, more effective methods were

resorted to. The beleaguered Senator was reminded that the applicant represented the united sentiment of the

people of the State from which he held his Senatorial seatthat they demanded Mr. Johnson's conviction and

removalthat that demand could not be safely denied, trifled with, or delayed; and that if money was

wanted, to use the language of a notorious inquisitor of the House, Mr. Butler, speaking of the possibility of

securing a designated vote for Impeachment "tell the dd scoundrel that if he wants money, there is a

So desperate were the inquisitors, and so close the certainty of the vote, that even a project of kidnapping a

Senator under the pretense of taking a trip to Baltimore for much needed rest, where, if the terms to be there

proffered were refused, a vacancy was to be createdby assassination, if necessarythen a recess of the

Senate to afford time for the appointment by the Governor of that Senator's State of a successor who would

vote for the Impeachment, of the Presidentwas entered upon and its execution attempted. But the trip to

These are not pleasant facts to contemplate, but they somewhat conspicuously characterized the conditions of

that time, and illustrate the real nature of the impeachment scheme. They boded the control of the

Government by the worst element of American politics. It is unnecessary to say here what that control would

have involved. During all the previous history of the Governmentits wars and political turmoilsthe

DemocraticRepublican forms that characterize its administrations have never faced so insidious or

threatening a danger as during that hour. It was a crucial test, and the result a magnificent vindication of the

wisdom and patriotism of the founders of our composite form of Government. Its results have but

strengthened those forms and broadened the scope of the beneficent political. institutions that have grown up

It was a test such as probably no other form of Government on earth could have successfully passed, and it is

The weakest point in the entire record of the Prosecution of President Johnson, from the indictment by the

House of Representatives to the finish in the Senate, (except the Bill of Impeachment itself, was the refusal of

the more than threefourths Republican majority of the Senate to permit the reception of testimony in his

behalf. That majority naturally gave them absolute control of the proceedings, and they should have realized

from the outset that they could not afford to give it the least tinge of partisan bias.

It is therefore not material to discuss in detail the instances of the two interrogatories put by counsel for the

Prosecution and rejected, Nos. 4 and 28, because it was shown that their answer would prove nothing against

the President, but rather to his vindication, and their rejection could not have occurred but for the intervention

of many more nay Republican than Democratic votesbut will pass to the analyzation of the votes on the

twelve interrogatories propounded by counsel for Defense and rejected, which rejections could not have

occurred but by the intervention of a large preponderance, in every instance, of the Republican votes cast

Without doubt, many of these votes on the admissibility of testimony were governed by, the usual rules

prevailing in the courts, but it was deemed by others that every question not manifestly frivolous, or not

pertinent, should be permitted answer without objection, regardless of such rulesthat the Senate sitting for

the trial of an Impeachment of the President of the United Statesthe occasion a great State Trialshould

not be trammeled or belittled by the technicalities common to ordinary court practicethat the Senate was

composed supposedly of gentlemen and lawyers of high standing in their profession and familiar with public

affairs and public lawthat they were sitting in a semijudicial capacitynot merely as Senators or jurors,

but, judges alsojudges of fact as well as of lawand constituted the highest trial body known to our

lawsa tribunal from which there was no appealthat each of its members had taken a solemn oath to "do

impartial justice" in this cause, absolutely unswerved by partisan or personal considerations, and that as such

each member had not only the right, but it was his duty under his oath, as well, to hermit no obstacle or

condition to unnecessarily keep from him a knowledge of all available facts pertinent to the cause, no matter

on which side they might weighto help or to hurt. That the body, each member for himself, was the proper

party to determine the admissibility of testimony, as Mr. Manager Boutwell had declared in his opening

argument, "AFTER HE HAD HEARD IT,"and knew its trend an purport. Every member of that body had the

right to know all the witness knew about the case, and, moreover, the witnesses were brought for the purpose,

The same assurance of absolute fairness as that of Mr. Boutwell, was also given by Mr. Bingham, another of

the Managers of the Prosecution on the part of the House, in his opening plea before the Senate: "It is," said

he, "certainly very competent for the Senate, as it is competent for any court of justice in the trial of cases

where questions of doubt arise, to HEAR THE EVIDENCE, and, where they themselves are the judges of

both the law and the fact, to DISMISS SO MUCH OF IT AS THEY MAY FIND INCOMPETENT, if any of

it be incompetent. * * * Under the Plea of Not Guilty, as provided in the rules, every conceivable defense that

Mr. Manager Butler also said, on the same occasion: "Upon this so great trial, I pray let us not belittle

ourselves with the analyses of the common law courts, or the criminal courts, because nothing is so

These and other like assurances were given of the widest reasonable latitude in the reception of testimony in

the trial then opening. There was thus every reason to expect that Mr. Johnson would have a fair trial. But no

sooner had the Prosecution completed its examination of witnesses, in which but seven interrogatories had

been objected to of the long list proffered by the Prosecution, than a different rule seemed to have been

established for the treatment of proffered testimony, and a large mass of relevant and valuable testimony in

behalf of the President was ruled out on objection of the Prosecution, as inadmissible, and, as a rule that, had

Of course it will not be admitted, nor is it here charged, that these refusals to hear testimony were because of

any fear that the answers would have any improper force or effect upon the Senate. Nor will it signify to say

that the President's attorneys could not have proved what they offered to prove. They hail the right to an

opportunity to so prove, and the denial of that right and opportunity was not only a denial of a manifest right

of the attorneys, but especially in this case, a more flagrant denial of the rights of the accused, and not only

It is conspicuous, too, that while the defense objected to but seven of the interrogatories submitted by the

Prosecution, and five of them were permitted answer by the vote of the Senate; twentyone of the proffers of

testimony by the defense were objected to by the prosecution and but nine of them permitted answer: and that

condition was aggravated by the fact that the numerical strength of the majority party in the Senate was

sufficient to determine absolutely the disposition of every question, and they could therefore afford to be

strictly fair to the accused, and by the further fact that the objections to testimony offered in behalf of the

defense were as three to one of the objections to testimony offered in behalf of the prosecution.

These denials of testimony in behalf of the defense were unfortunate. That practice lowered the dignity of the

occasion and of the proceeding, as they could but have given ground for criticism of partisan bias and a

vindictive judgment in case of successful impeachment. Most, if not all these rejected interrogatories implied

important information in possession of the witnesses which the Senate had a right to, and which the party

offering had the right to have produced. Moreover, it was the right and the duty of the Senate to know what

the witness was presumed to know, and then to judge, each Senator for himself, of the relevancy of the

As stated, the principal averment against the President, was his alleged violation of the TenureofOffice Act

in the removal of Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, presented in various phases throughout the

In illustration of the treatment of testimony offered in the President's behalf by a majority of the Republican

Senators, the record shows that on the eighth disputed interrogatory, the second put by the defense, General

Sherman being on the witness stand:Defense asked as to a certain conversation relating to that removal,

had between the General and the President at an interview specified. The prosecution objected to the question

being answered, and a vote of the Senate was demanded. The vote wasfor receiving the testimony, 23;

against receiving it, 28. Of the latter number, twentyseven, all Republicans, voted at the close of the trial to

convict the President of violating the TenureofOffice Act, in the removal of Mr. Stanton, after refusing to

The next interrogatory, No. 9, was "when the President asked the witness (Gen. Sherman,) to accept the War

Office, was anything further said in reference to it?" This was objected to by the prosecution, and the vote

thereon was 23 to 29. Twentyeight of the twentynine gentlemen thus refusing answer to this question,

afterwards voting to convict the President, after refusing to bear the testimony of a very important witness in

his behalf, which his counsel proposed to produce and tried in vain to get before the Senate.

On the tenth interrogatory, by Defense, "whether the President had stated to the witness, (General Sherman),

his object in asking him to accept the War Office," the vote was 7 to 44 against receiving it, and thirtyone of

the gentlemen voting not to hear this testimony, at the close of the hearing voted to convict Mr. Johnson of a

high misdemeanor in office in the removal of Mr. Stanton, after refusing to hear his defense.

The next, No. 11, was as to the President's attempt to get a case before the Supreme Court for a judicial

determination of Mr. Stanton's right to retain the War Office against the President's wish. This testimony was

refused by a vote of 25 to 27every nay vote being cast by a Republican, every one of whom at the close of

the trial, voting in effect to convict Mr. Johnson of a high misdemeanor in office in seeking resort to the

courts to test the legality of an act of Congress passed for the practically sole purpose of restricting an

The next interrogatory, No. 12, was whether the witness, (General Sherman, had formed an opinion whether

the good of the service required a Secretary of War other than Mr. Stanton. It was well understood that

General Sherman believed that for the good of the service Mr. Stanton ought to retire, and as the Chief

Officer of the Army his opinion was certainly entitled to weight, and the President had a right to the benefit

of his judgment. This interrogatory was objected to by the Prosecution, and was rejected by a vote of 18 to

35thirtyone of the thirtyfive being Republicans, who at the close of the trial voted to convict Mr.

Johnson of a high misdemeanor in the removal of Mr. Stanton, after refusing him the benefit of the opinion of

the Chief Officer of the Army on a question affecting the military service, and to which he was in all fairness

No. 13, General Sherman was asked whether he had advised, the President to appoint a successor to Mr.

Stanton. (It was well understood that he had.) Answer to this was refused, 18 to 32thirty of the latter, all

Republicans, voting at the close of the trial to convict Mr. Johnson, after refusing to hear this important

testimony in his behalf. No. 16. The answer to the last interrogatory, ("if he did, state what his purpose was,")

was received by a majority of one, 26 to 25every nay vote being a Republican, and constituting a majority

No. 21. Mr. O. E. Perrin on the stand, was asked as to the President's statement that Mr. Stanton would

relinquish the office at once to General Thomas"that it was only a temporary arrangement"that he

would "send to the Senate at once the name of a good man," (which he did). This testimony was rejected by a

vote of 9 to 37thirty of the latter number being Republicans who at the close of the trial voted to convict

Mr. Johnson of a high misdemeanor in sending to the Senate the name of Thomas Ewing, Senior, for

appointment as Secretary of War, vice Stanton removed in assumed violation of the TenureofOffice Act.

The next offer of testimony to be rejected was No. 23Mr. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, on the

stand, to prove that the Cabinet had advised the President to veto the TenureofOffice Bill as

unconstitutional. The Chief Justice ruled the testimony admissible for the purpose of showing the intent with

which the President had acted in the transaction. Prosecution objected, and by a vote of 20 to 29, the decision

of the Chief Justice was overruled. No answer to this interrogatory was permitted, every vote to refuse this

testimony being cast by a Republican, every one of whom, at the close of the trial, voting to convict and

remove Mr. Johnson for alleged violation of a law which he believed to be unconstitutionalwhich he was

advised by the head of the Law Department of the Government was unconstitutional and therefore not a law

which he had sworn to execute, and the constitutionality of which he had endeavored to get before the courts

for adjudicationthose 29 Republicans so voting after having refused to hear testimony in his defense on

The next disputed interrogatory was No. 24that Mr. Johnson's Cabinet had advised him that the Secretaries

who had been appointed by Mr. Lincoln and still holding, (Mr. Stanton, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Welles,) were

removable by the President, notwithstanding the assumed restriction of the TenureofOffice Act. The Chief

Justice ruled this testimony to be admissible. Objection was made by the Prosecution, and a vote taken, and

the interrogatory was rejected22 to 26every nay vote being a Republican, every one of whom at the

close of the trial, voting to convict and remove Mr. Johnson from office, after having refused to hear this very

Defense next offered to prove (No. 25) that it was determined by the President, with the concurrence of the

Cabinet, that an agreed case for the determination of the constitutionality of the TenureofOffice Act should

be made. This testimony was objected to, and a vote taken, which was 19 to 30. Every one of the gentlemen

voting to reject this testimony, Mr. Johnson's right to which cannot with any possible showing of fairness be

successfully disputed, were Republicans, and after so voting, at the close of the trial, declared by their several

verdicts that he had been fairly proven guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, by violation of the

TenureofOffice Act in seeking a judicial determination of the validity of a disputed Act of Congress, and

No. 26, was as to any suggestion by the President of the employment of force for the vacation of any office,

(relating of course, to the War Office.) Mr. Johnson had been charged with seeking the removal of Mr.

Stanton by force, should he resist. Knowing perfectly that the answer would be in the negative, the Senate

refused to permit answer to this interrogatory, by a vote of 18 to 26, every one of the twentysix gentlemen at

the close of the trial in effect voting that the President was guilty as charged, of seeking to remove Mr.

Stanton by violence, after refusing to hear either his denial or witnesses in his behalf on that point.

No. 27. Defense proposed to prove that the Cabinet had advised the President that the TenureofOffice Act

did not prevent the removal of those members who had been originally appointed by Mr. Lincoln. This

testimony, which, if permitted answer, would, in the minds of unprejudiced people, have at once set aside the

entire impeachment scheme, was not permitted answer. The vote was 20 to 26every one of the twentysix

gentlemen who voted to reject that most important and conclusive testimony in Mr. Johnson's behalf, at the

close of the examination voting to convict him of a high misdemeanor in office by violating the

TenureofOffice Act in removing Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of Warafter refusing this offer

to prove by his Cabinet advisers; the witness himself, (Mr. Welles, and his testimony, if received, was to be

followed by that of Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton, all of whom had been appointed by Mr. Lincoln and not

reappointed by Mr. Johnson,) that that act did not apply to or protect them against removal at the pleasure of

the President. So that on eighteen of these twentyone disputed interrogatories put in behalf of the Defense, a

majority of the Republicans of the Senate refused in every instance to hear testimony, after having sworn to

But the most flagrant case of unfairness to the defendant in this examination of witnesses occurred in the

treatment of interrogatory No. 3, put by the prosecution, in their introduction of a letter from the President to

General Grant, purporting to enclose letters from different members of the Cabinet in substantiation of the

position of the President in the controversy then pending between Gen. Grant and himself. These letters were

enclosed with, and specifically referred to and made a part of the President's communication, and were

necessary to a correct apprehension of the controversy, from the President's or any other standpoint.

Being so enclosed and referred to in the letter transmitting and enclosing them, they became quite as much a

part of the President's communication as his own letter which enclosed them. Counsel for Defense objected to

the introduction of the President's letter without the enclosures, but the objection was not sustained and the

letters were not permitted to be introduced, but the letter enclosing and referring to them was. The vote on the

production of the enclosures was, yeas 20, nays 29twentyeight of the thirtyeight Republicans present,

voting to exclude this essential testimony in the President's behalf, and twentyseven of the number

afterwards voted to convict him of a high misdemeanor in office in removing Mr. Stanton from the War

Office, after refusing him the benefit of the testimony of his Constitutional Cabinet advisers in this important

It is possible that under other conditions this proceeding might have been legitimate and proper; but Mr.

Johnson was on trial under grave charges, before the highest, and supposably fairest tribunal on earth, and

had a right to the benefit of the testimony of his cabinet, in full, and more especially when that testimony was

presented in a distorted and garbled shape by his accusers. Moreover, every member of the Court had the

right to know what was in those letters, if any part of the correspondence was to be received. But whether or

not Mr. Johnson had the right to the testimony in his behalf which it was claimed these enclosures contained,

he certainly had the right to resist the introduction of mutilated testimony against him. The purpose of the

trial was to ascertain the facts in the caseall the facts bearing on either side. The Court was sitting and the

This record shows, that in but three instances out of twentyone, did a majority of the Republicans of the

Senate vote to receive testimony offered in the President's behalfthat on one interrogatory there was an

equal divisionthat on seventeen of the twentyone interrogatories put by the Defense, a majority of the

Republicans voted to exclude testimony, in several cases by a twothirds voteand that but nine of the

twentyone interrogatories put in behalf of the President were by Republican votes permitted to be

answeredalso that, as a rule which had very rare exceptions, such interrogatories in behalf of the President

It is undoubted that every Republican member of the Senate entered upon that trial in the expectation that the

allegations of the Prosecution would be sustained, but it was also expected that a fair, free, full, open

investigation of all the charges preferred would be had, and that all the information possible to be obtained

bearing upon the case, pro and con, would be admitted to testimonybut that expectation was not realized.

To sum up this feature of the proceedingthe Republican majority of the Senate placed themselves and their

party in the attitude of prosecutors in the caseinstead of judges sworn to give the President an impartial

trial and judgment that their course had the appearance, at least, of a conspiracy to evict the President for

purely partisan purposes, regardless of testimony or the facts of the casethat public animosity against Mr.

Johnson had been manufactured throughout the North by wild and vicious misrepresentations for partisan

effectthat practically the entire Republican Party machinery throughout the country was bent to the work

of prosecution. The party cry was "Crucify him!" "Convict him anyway, and try him afterwards!" With rare

exceptions, the Republican Party of the country, press and people, were a unit in this insensate cry.

There can be but one conclusion from these premises, established by the record of the trialthat the entire

proceeding, from its inception in the House of Representatives to its conclusion in the Senate, was a

thoroughly partisan prosecution on the part of the majority in both Houses, and that the country was saved

from the shameful spectacle, and the dangerous consequences of such a proceeding, by the intervention and

selfsacrifice of a few gentlemen who proposed to respect the obligation of their oath, and give Mr. Johnson,

so far as in their power, a fair trial and judgmentand not having had such a trialto give him the benefit

of what he claimed he could prove in his own behalf and was not permitted toand a verdict of "Not

What every member of the Court had sworn to do was "impartial justice" to Andrew Johnson, and nothing

less. The Counsel on neither side had taken that oath, but the Court had; and its performance of that oath was

impossible without possession of all the information relating to and bearing upon the case that it was

reasonably possible to obtain. That is the essential ingredient and characteristic of a fair trial.

IN THIS CASE BY THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY OF THE SENATE, as the official record of the trial

clearly establishes. It was an illdisguised and malevolent partisan prosecution.

The power conferred by the Constitution upon Congress to impeach and remove the President for cause, is

unquestionably a wise provision. The natural tendency of the most patriotic of men, in the exercise of power

in great public emergencies, is to overstep the line of absolute safety, in the conscientious conviction that a

departure from strict constitutional or legal limitations is demanded by the public welfare.

The danger in such departures, even upon apparent necessity, if condoned or permitted by public judgment is

in the establishment of precedents whereby greater and more dangerous infractions of organic law may be

invited, tolerated, and justified, till government takes on a form of absolutism in one form or another, fatal to

On the other hand, a too ready resort to the power of impeachment as a remedial agentthe deposition of a

public officer in the absence of proof of the most positive and convincing character of the impeachability of

the offense alledged, naturally tends to the other extreme, till public officers may become by common

consent removable by impeachment upon insufficient though popular chargeseven upon partisan

The power of impeachment and removal becomes, therefore, a twoedged sword, which must be handled

with consummate judgment and skill, and resort thereto had only in the gravest emergencies and for causes so

clearly manifest as to preclude the possibility of partisan divisions or partisan judgments thereon. Otherwise,

too ready resort to impeachment must inevitably establish and bring into common use a new and dangerous

remedy for the cure of assumed political ills which have their origin only in partisan differences as to

methods of administration. It would become an engine of partisan intolerance for the punishment and

ostracism of political opponents, under the operation of which the great office of Chief Magistrate must

inevitably lose its dignity, and decline from its Constitutional rank as a coordinate department of the

Government, and its occupant no longer the political head and Chief Executive of the Nation, except in name.

It was in that sense, and to a pointed degree, that in the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson the quality

of coordination of the three great Departments of Governmentthe Executive, Legislative, and

Judicialwas directly involvedthe House of Representatives as prosecutorthe President as

defendantthe Senate sitting as the trial court in which the Chief Justice represented the judicial department

The anomaly of the situation was increased and its gravity intensified, by the fact that the President pro

tempore of the Senate, who stood first in the line of succession to the Presidency in case of conviction, was

permitted, in a measure, indeed, forced by his proimpeachment colleagues, on a partisan division of the

Senate, to sit and vote as such President pro tempore for the impeachment and removal of the President

These facts of condition attending and characterizing the trial of President Johnson, pointedly accentuate the

danger to our composite form of government which the country then faced. That danger, as it had found

frequent illustration in the debates in the House of Representatives on the several propositions for the

President's impeachment preceding the bringing of the indictment, lay in the claim of superiority of political

function for the Legislative branch over the Executive. The quality of coordination of these departments was

repeatedly and emphatically denied by conspicuous and influential members of that body during the initial

proceedings of the impeachment movement, and even on the floor of the Senate by the managers of the

Mr. Bingham, in the House, Feb. 22nd, 1868, announced the extraordinary doctrine that "there is no power to

review the action of Congress." Again, speaking of the action of the Senate on the 21st of February, on the

President's message announcing the removal of Mr. Stanton, he said: "Neither the Supreme Court nor any

The declaration was made by Messrs. Stevens and Boutwell in the House, that the Senate was its own judge

Mr. Butler, in his opening speech to the Senate, at the beginning of the trial, used this language:

A Constitutional tribunal solely, you are bound by no law, either Statute or Common, which may limit your

constitutional prerogative. You consult no precedents save those of the law and custom of parliamentary

bodies. You are a law unto yourselves, bound only by the natural principles of equity and justice, and salus

Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary had any right to interfere with it (Reconstruction) except so far as was

necessary to control it by military rule until the sovereign power of the Nation had provided for its civil

WHEN, they (the rebel States), should be admitted to the Union as States and entitled to the privileges of the

Constitution of the United States." * * * "I trust that when we come to vote upon this question we shall

remember that although it is the duty of the President to see that the laws be executed, THE SOVEREIGN

Mr. Butler, the leading spirit of the impeachment enterprise, went so far as to make the revolutionary

suggestion of the abrogation of the Presidential office in the event of final failure to convict the

Mr. Sumner insisted that in no judicial sense was the Senate a Court, and therefore not bound by the rules of

If the Senate is a Court bound to judicial forms on the expulsion of the President, must it not be the same in

the expulsion of a Senator? But nobody attributes to it any such strictures in the latter case. * * In the case of

Blount, which is the first in our history, the expulsion was on the report of a committee declaring him guilty

of a high misdemeanor. At least one Senator has been expelled on simple formal motion. Others have been

expelled without any formal allegations or formal proofs. * * * The Constitution provides that "Each House

shall determine its rules of proceeding." The Senate on the expulsion of its own members has already done.

this practically and set an example of simplicity. But it has the same power over its rules of proceeding" on

the expulsion of the President, and there can be no reason for simplicity in the one case not equally applicable

in the other. Technicality is as little consonant with the one as with the other. Each has for its object the

PUBLIC SAFETY. For this a Senator is expelled; for this, also, the President is expelled. Salus Populi

Suprema Lex. The proceedings in each case must be in subordination to this rule."

Thus, Mr. Sumner would have removed the President by an ordinary concurrent resolution of Congress.

The purpose of all this was apparentthat the President was in effect, to be tried and judged before a Court

of Public Opinion, and not before the Senate sitting as a High Court of Impeachment, but BY the Senate

sitting in its legislative capacityto create the impression in the minds of Senators that in this high judicial

procedure they were still acting as a legislative bodysimply as Senators, and not in a judicial capacity, as

judges and jurors, and therefore not bound specifically by their oaths as such, to convict only for crime

denounced by the law, or for manifest high political misdemeanors, but could take cognizance of and convict

on alleged partisan offenses and allegations based on differences of opinion and partisan prejudices and

partisan predilectionsthat it was not essential that the judgment of Senators should be confined to the

specific allegations of the indictment, but that the whole range of alleged political and partisan misdemeanors

and delinquencies could be taken into account in seeking a pretext for Mr. Johnson's conviction.

The superiority of the Legislative branch was thus openly. advocated and insisted, and uncontroverted by any

Republican supporting the impeachment. Mr. Johnson, according to these oft repeated declarations, was to be

tried and convicted, not necessarily for any specific violation of law, or of the Constitution, but by prevailing

public opinionpublic clamorin a word, on administrative differences subsisting between the President and

the leaders of the dominant party in and out of Congress, and that public opinion, as concurrent developments

fully establish, was industriously manufactured throughout the North, on the demand of leaders of the

impeachment movement in the House, through the instrumentality of a partisan press and partisan public

meetings, and in turn reflected back upon the Senate, in the form of resolutions denunciatory of the President

That was in fact, and in a large sense, the incentive to the impeachment movement, and it wasnot confined

to a faction, but characterized the dominant portion of the political party then in the ascendancy in and out of

In this state of facts lay largely the vice of the impeachment movement, and it illustrated to a startling degree

the danger in the departure from established forms of judicial procedure in such cases.

It became apparent, long before the close, that it was but little if anything more than a partisan

prosecutionand that fact became more generally and firmly fixed, from day to day, as the trial approached

In that state of facts, again, and in that sense, the impeachment of the President, was an assault upon the

principle of coordination that underlies our political system and thus a menace to our established political

forms, as, if successful, it would, logically, have been the practical destruction of the Executive

Departmentand, in view of previous legislation out of which the impeachment movement had to a degree

arisen, and of declarations in the House and Senate quoted in this connection, the final and logical result of

conviction would have been the absorption of the Executive functions of the Government by the Legislative

Department, and the consequent declension of that Department to a mere bureau for the registration of the

Conscious of the natural tendency to infringement by a given Department of the Government upon the

functions of its coordinates, the framers of the Constitution wisely defined the respective spheres of the

several departments, and those definitions constitute unmistakable admonition to each as to trespass by either

"The Constitution has not only made a general delegation of the legislative power to one branch of the

Government, of the executive to another, and of the judicial to the third, but it has specifically defined the

general powers and duties of each of those departments. This is essential to peace and safety in any

Government, and especially in one clothed only with specific power for national purposes and erected in the

midst of numerous State Governments retaining exclusive control of their local concerns.* * * Were there no

power to interpret, pronounce and execute the law, the Government would perish through its own imbecility,

as was the case with the Articles of Confederation; or other powers must be assumed by the legislative body,

to the destruction of liberty." Again, as was eloquently and forcefully said by Daniel Webster in the U. S.

"The first object of a free people is the preservation of their liberty, and liberty is only to be preserved by

maintaining constitutional restraints and just division of political power. Nothing is more deceptive or more

dangerous than the pretense of a desire to simplify government. The simplest governments are despotisms;

the next simplest, limited monarchies; but all republics, all governments of law, must impose numerous

limitations and qualifications of authority and give many positive and many qualified rights. In other words,

they must be subject to rule and regulation. This is the very essence of free political institutions. The spirit of

liberty is, indeed, a bold and fearless spirit; but it is also a sharpsighted spirit: it is a cautious, sagacious,

discriminating, farseeing intelligence; it is jealous of encroachment, jealous of power, jealous of man. It

demands checks; it seeks for guards; it insists on securities; it entrenches itself behind strong defenses, and

fortifies itself with all possible care against the assaults of ambition and passion. It does not trust the amiable

weaknesses of human nature, and, therefore, it will not permit power to overstep its prescribed limits, though

benevolence, good intent, and patriotic purpose come along with it. Neither does it satisfy itself with flashy

and temporary resistance to illegal authority. Far otherwise. It seeks for duration and permanence; it looks

before and after; and, building on the experience of ages which are past, it labors diligently for the benefit of

ages to come. This is the nature of constitutional liberty; and this is our liberty, if we will rightly understand

and preserve it. Every free government is necessarily complicated, because all such governments establish

restraints, as well on the power of government itself as on that of individuals. If we will abolish the

distinction of branches, and have but one branch; if we will abolish jury trials, and leave all to the judge; if

we will then ordain that the legislator shall himself be that judge; and if we will place the executive power in

the same hands, we may readily simplify government. We may easily bring it to the simplest of all possible

forms, a pure despotism. But a separation of departments, so far as practicable, and the preservation of clear

lines of division between them, is the fundamental idea in the creation of all our constitutions; and, doubtless,

Each department is supreme within its own constitutionally prescribed limits, and the Supreme Court is made

the umpire for the definition of the limits and the protection of the rights of all. Neither Congress, nor the

Executive, are authorized to determine the constitutionality and therefore the validity of their acts, or the

limits of their jurisdiction under the Constitution, but the Supreme Court is so authorized, and it is the umpire

before which all differences in that regard must be determined. It is the tribunal of last resort, save the people

themselves, before whom both Senate and House, and the Executive, must bow, and its decision is final in the

A due regard, therefore, for the interpretation of law and the division of powers thus established, constitutes

the great safeguard upon which the harmonious and successful operation of our political system depends. On

its religious observance rests, primarily, the preservation of our free institutions and the perpetuation of our

peculiar system of popular government. That quality of coordinationof the equality of the several

Departments as adjusted by the Organic Actconstitutes the balance wheel of our political system.

The logical effect of the doctrines promulgated by the House of Representatives in that regard, and reechoed

on the floor of the Senate, in the press and on the stump throughout the North, were therefore not only

revolutionary, but destructive. To have removed the President upon accusations in reality based upon partisan

and personalnot amounting even to substantial political differenceswould have been the establishment

In a large sense, the American system of politics and of government was on trial, quite as much as was

Andrew Johnson. The extreme element of American politics was in absolute control in the House of

Representatives, and practically so, in the Senate. The impeachment and removal of the President on

unsubstantiated, or even remotely doubtful charges, simply: because of a disagreement between himself and

Congress as to the method of treating a great public emergency, would have introduced a new and destructive

Logically, the introduction of such a practice on that occasion would have been construed as a precedent for

the treatment of future public emergencies. Thus, it would have tended to disturb the now perfect adjustment

of the balance of powers between the coordinate branches. That quality of absolute supremacy of the several

departments in their respective spheres, or functions, and of coordination or equality in their relations to

each other, established by the Constitution as a guarantee of the perpetuity of our political system, would

have been endangered, and the result could not have been otherwise than disaster in the future.

Logically, the Presidency would in time have been. degraded to the position of a mere department for the

execution of the decrees of the legislative branch. Not illogically, the Supreme Court would have been the

next object of attack, and the legislature have become, by this unconstitutional absorption of the powers of

That would, in time, by equally logical sequence, have been the natural, inevitable resultand the end. The

wreckage of the Great Republic of the age would have been strown upon the sands of the political

seashorerelics of the disregard of the checks and balances established by the wisdom of its framers, in the

fundamental lawand all for the satisfaction of personal ambitions and the hates of factional animosities.

History affords too many illustrations of that tendency to decadence and disruption from disregard of the

proper and necessary checks and balances in the distribution and equalization of the powers of government,

to permit us to doubt what the final end would have been had the President been removed on the

unsubstantiated accusation preferred by the House of Representatives, Our peculiar system of political

governmenta Democratic Republicpassed the danger point of its history in that hour.

It was indeed a narrow escape. The history of civilization records no precisely similar condition. The country

then passed the most threatening period of its historybut passed it safely. The result was the highest

possible testimonial to the strength and endurance of properly adjusted Democratic institutions that history

It emphasized not only the capacity of the American people for intelligent and orderly selfgovernment, but

also the strength and endurance of our popular forms. It was a profound surprise to those habituated to

different political conditions. They had witnessed with astonishment the quiet disbandment of millions of

men but as yesterday engaged in mortal strifethe vast armies as peacefully returning to former vocations as

though from a great paradeand now, from a state of civil convulsion that in many another nation would

have produced armed collision and public disorder, they saw an entire people quietly accepting the verdict of

the highest authoritive body of the land, and practically dismissing the subject from thought. It was a splendid

worldwide tribute to the strength and endurance of our system of popular government.

Yet the conclusion must not be deduced that the power of impeachment is not a wise provision of our

Constitution, nor in any sense inconsistent with our popular forms. Conditions may, and are not unlikely to

arise, some day, when the exercise of the power to impeach and remove the President may be quite as

essential to the preservation of our political system as it threatened to become in this instance destructive of

that system. Should that day ever come, it is to be hoped that the remedy of impeachment, as established by

the Constitution, may be as patriotically, as fearlessly, and as unselfishly applied as it was on this occasion

Copy of letter addressed to each of the members of the Cabinet present at the conversation between the

President and General Grant on the 14th of January, 1868, and the answers thereto:

Sir:The Chronicle of this morning contains a correspondence between the President and General Grant,

reported from the War Department, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives. I beg to call

your attention to that correspondence, and especially to that part of it which refers to the conversation

between the President and General Grant, at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, and to

Sir:Your note of this date was handed to me this evening. My recollection of the conversation at the

Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, corresponds with your statement of it in the letter of the

31st ultimo, in the published correspondence. The three points specified in that letter, giving your recollection

Sir:I have received your note of the 5th instant, calling my attention to the correspondence between

youself and General Grant, as published in the Chronicle of yesterday, especially to that part of it which

relates to what occurred at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday the 14th ultimo, and requesting me to state what

I cannot undertake to state the precise language used, but I have no hesitation in saying that your account of

that conversation. as given in your letter to General Grant under date of the 31st ultimo. substantially and in

Sir:I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th of February, calling my attention to the correspondence

published in the Chronicle between the President and General Grant, and especially to that part of it which

refers to the conversation between the President and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the

14th of January, with a request that I state what was said in that conversation. In reply, I have the honor to

state that I have read carefully the correspondence in question, and particularly the letter of the President to

General Grant, dated January 31, 1868. The following extract from your letter of the 31st January to General

Grant is, according to my recollection, a correct statement of the conversation that took place between the

President and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting on the 14th of January last. In the presence of the Cabinet

the President asked General Grant whether, "in conversation which took place after his appointment as

Secretary of War ad interim, he did not agree either to remain at the head of the War Department and abide

any judicial proceedings that might follow the nonconcurrence by the Senate in Mr. Stanton's suspension,

or, should he wish not to become involved in such a controversy, to put the President in the same position

with respect to the office as he occupied previous to General Grant's appointment by returning it to the

President in time to anticipate such action by the Senate." This General Grant admitted.

The President then asked General Grant if, at the conference on the preceding Saturday, he had not, to avoid

misunderstanding, requested General Grant to state what he intended to do; and further, if in reply to that

inquiry he (General Grant) had not referred to their former conversations, saying that from them the President

understood his position, and that his (General Grant's) action would be consistent with the understanding

which had been reached. To these questions General Grant replied in the affirmative.

The President asked General Grant if, at the conclusion of their interview on Saturday, it was not understood

that they were to have another conference on Monday, before final action by the Senate in the case of Mr.

General Grant replied that such was the understanding, but that he did not suppose the Senate would act so

soon; that on Monday he had been engaged in a conference with General Sherman, and was occupied with

I take this mode of complying with the request contained in the President dent's letter to me, because my

attention had been called to the subject before, when the conversation between the President and General

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Alexander W. Randall, Postmaster General. To the President.

Sir:I am in receipt of yours of yesterday, calling my attention to a correspondence between yourself and

General Grant, published in the Chronicle newspaper, and especially to that part of said correspondence

"which refers to the conversation between the President and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting on

Tuesday, the 14th of January," and requesting me "to state what was said in that conversation."

In reply, I submit the following statement: At the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, 1868,

General Grant appeared and took his accustomed seat at the board. When he had been reached in the order of

In reply, the General, after referring to a note which he had that morning addressed to the President, inclosing

a copy of the resolution of the Senate refusing to concur in the reasons for the suspension of Mr. Stanton,

proceeded to say that he regarded his duties as Secretary of War ad interim terminated by that resolution, and

that he could not lawfully exercise such duties for a moment after the adoption of the resolution by the

Senate. That the resolution reached him last night, and that this morning he had gone to the War Department,

entered the Secretary's room, bolted one door on the inside, locked the other on the outside, delivered the key

to the Adjutant General, and proceeded to the headquarters of the Army, and addressed the note above

mentioned to the President, informing him that he (General Grant) was no longer Secretary of War ad

The President expressed great surprise at the course which General Grant had thought proper to pursue, and,

addressing himself to the General, proceeded to say, in substance, that he had anticipated such action on the

part of the Senate, and being very desirous to have the constitutionality of the TenureofOffice bill tested,

and his right to suspend or remove a member of the Cabinet decided by the judicial tribunals of the country,

he had some time ago, and shortly after General Grant's appointment as Secretary of War ad interim, asked

the General what his action would be in the event that the Senate should refuse to concur in the suspension of

Mr. Stanton, and that the General had agreed either to remain at the head of the War Department till a

decision could be obtained from the court or resign the office in the hands of the President before the case

was acted upon by the Senate, so as to place the President in the same situation he occupied at the time of his

The President further said that the conversation was renewed on the preceding Sunday, at which time he

asked the General what he intended to do if the Senate should undertake to reinstate Mr. Stanton; in reply to

which the General referred to their former conversation upon the same subject, and said. "You understand my

position, and my conduct will be conformable to that understanding:" that he (the General) then expressed a

repugnance to being made a party to a judicial proceeding, saying that he would expose himself to fine and

imprisonment by doing so, as his continuing to discharge the duties of Secretary of War ad interim, after the

Senate should have refused to concur in the suspension of Mr. Stanton would be a violation of the

TenureofOffice bill. That in reply to this he (the President) informed General Grant he had not suspended

Mr. Stanton under the TenureofOffice bill, but by virtue of the powers conferred on him by the

Constitution: and that, as to the fine and imprisonment, he (the President) would pay whatever fine was

imposed and submit to whatever imprisonment might be adjudged against him (the General.) That they

continued the conversation for some time, discussing the law at length, and that they finally separated without

having reached a definite conclusion, and with the understanding that the General would see the President

In reply, General Grant admitted that the conversation had occurred, and said that at the first conversation he

had given it as his opinion to the President that in the event of nonconcurrence by the Senate in the action of

the President in respect to the Secretary of War the question would have to be decided by the court; that Mr.

Stanton would have to appeal to the court to reinstate him in office; that he would remain in till they could be

displaced and the outs put in by legal proceeding; and that he then thought so, and had agreed that if he

should change his mind he would notify the President in time to enable him to make another appointment, but

that at the time of the first conversation he had not looked very closely into the law; that it had recently been

discussed by the newspapers, and that this had induced him to examine it more carefully, and that he had

come to the conclusion that if the Senate should refuse to concur in the, suspension Mr. Stanton would

thereby be reinstated. and that he (Grant) could not continue thereafter to act as Secretary of War ad interim,

without subjecting himself to fine and imprisonment; and that he came over on Saturday to inform the

President of this change in his views, and did so inform him, that the President replied that he had not

suspended Mr Stanton under the TenureofOffice bill, but under the Constitution, and appointed him

(Grant) by virtue of the authority derived from the Constitution, that they continued to discuss the matter

some time, and finally he left without any conclusion having been reached, expecting to see the President

again on Monday. He then proceeded to explain why he had not called on the President on Monday, saying

that he had had a long interview with General Sherman; that various little matters had occupied his time till it

was late, and that he did not think the Senate would act so soon, and asked, "did not General Sherman call on

I do not know what passed between the President and General Grant on Saturday, except as I learned it from

the conversation between them at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, and the foregoing is substantially what

then occurred. The precise words used on the occasion are not, of course, given exactly in the order in which

they were spoken, but the ideas expressed and the facts stated are faithfully preserved and presented. I have

Sir: The meeting to which you refer in your letter was a regular Cabinet meeting. While the members were

assembling, and before the President had entered the Council Chamber, General Grant, on coming in, said to

me that he was in attendance there, not as a member of the Cabinet, but upon invitation, and I replied by the

inquiry whether there was a change in the War Department. After the President had taken his seat business

went on in the usual way of hearing matters submitted by the several secretaries. When the time came for the

Secretary of War General Grant said that he was now there not as Secretary of War, but upon the President's

invitation, that he had retired from the War Department. A Blight difference then appeared about the

supposed invitation, General Grant saying that the officer who had borne his letter to the President that

morning, announcing his retirement from the War Department, had told him that the President desired to see

him at the Cabinet, to which the President answered, that when General Grant's communication was delivered

to him the President simply replied that he supposed General Grant would be very soon at the Cabinet

meeting. I regarded the conversation thus begun as an incidental one. It went on quite informally, and

consisted of a statement, on your part, of your views in regard to the understanding of the tenure upon which

General Grant had assented to hold the War Department ad interim, and of his replies by way of answer and

explanation. It was respectful and courteous on both sides. Being in this conversational form, its details could

only have been preserved by verbatim report. So far as I know, no such report was made at the time. I can

Certainly you stated that although you had reported the reasons for Mr. Stanton's suspension to the Senate,

you nevertheless held that he would not be entitled to resume the office of Secretary of War, even if the

Senate should disapprove of his suspension. and that you had proposed to have the question tested by judicial

process, to be applied to the person who should be the incumbent of the Department, under your designation

of Secretary of War ad interim in the place of Mr. Stanton. You contended that this was well understood

between yourself and Gen. Grant; that when he entered the War Department as Secretary ad interim he

expressed his concurrence in a belief that the question of Mr. Stanton's restoration would be a question for the

courts; that in a subsequent conversation with General Grant you had adverted to the understanding thus had,

and that General Grant expressed his concurrence in it: that at some conversation which had been previously

held General Grant said he still adhered to the same construction of the law, but said if he should change his

opinion he would give you seasonable notice of it, so that you should in any case, be placed in the same

position in regard to the War Department that you were while General Grant held it ad interim. I did not

understand General Grant as denying, nor as explicitly admitting, these statements in the form and full extent

to which you made them. The admission of them was rather indirect and circumstantial. though I did not

understand it to be an evasive one. He said that, reasoning from what occurred in the case of the police in

Maryland, which he regarded as a parallel one, he was of opinion, and so assured you, that it would be his

right and duty, under your instructions, to hold the War Office after the Senate should disapprove of Mr.

Stanton's suspension until the question should be decided upon by the courts; that he remained until very

recently of that opinion, and that on the Saturday before the Cabinet meeting a conversation was held

General Grant's statement was, that in that conversation he had stated to you the legal difficulties which

might arise, involving fine and imprisonment under the civil tenure bill, and that he did not care to subject

himself to those penalties; that you replied to this remark, that you regarded the civil tenure bill as

unconstitutional. and did not think its penalties were to be feared, or that you would voluntarily assume them;

and you insisted that General Grant should either retain the office until relieved by yourself according to what

you claimed was the original understanding, between yourself and him, or, by seasonable notice of change of

purpose on his part, put you in the same situation which you would be if he adhered. You claimed that

General Grant finally said in that Saturday's conversation that you understood his views, and his proceedings

thereafter would be consistent with what had been so understood. General Grant did not controvert nor can I

say that he admitted this last statement. Certainly General Grant did not at any time in the Cabinet meeting

insist that he had in the Saturday's conversation either distinctly or finally advised you of his determination to

retire from the charge of the War Department otherwise than under your own subsequent direction. He

acquiesced in your statement that the Saturday's conversation ended with an expectation that there would be a

subsequent conference on the subject, which he, as well as yourself, supposed could seasonably take place on

You then alluded to the fact that General Grant did not call upon you on Monday, as you had expected from

that conversation. General Grant admitted that it was his expectation or purpose to call upon you on Monday.

General Grant assigned reasons for the omission. He said he was in conference with General Sherman; that

there were many little matters to be attended to. He had conversed upon the matter of the incumbency of the

War Department with General Sherman, and he expected that General Sherman would call upon you on

Monday. My own mind suggested a further explanation, but I do not remember whether it was mentioned or

notnamely, that it was not supposed by General Grant on Monday that the Senate would decide the question

so promptly as to anticipate further explanation between yourself and him if delayed beyond that day.

General Grant made another explanationthat he was engaged on Sunday with General Sherman, and, I

think, also on Monday, in regard to the War Department matter, with a hope, though he did not say in an

effort, to procure an amicable settlement of the affair of Mr. Stanton, and he still hoped that it would be