按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
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。
CHAPTER VIII。 ORGANIZATION OF THE COURT ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL
On Thursday； March 5th； 1868； the Senate of the United States was organized for the trial of the charges brought against Andrew Johnson； President of the United States； by the House of 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； of Massachusetts； and Hon。 Thaddeus Stevens； of Pennsylvania。
The following gentlemen appeared as counsel for the President：
Messrs。 Henry Stanbery； of Kentucky； Benjamin R。 Curtis； of Massachusetts； Thomas A。 R。 Nelson； of Tennessee； William M。 Evarts； of New York； and William S。 Groesbeck； of Ohio。
The following gentlemen comprised the United States Senate； sitting for the trial of the President：
California…Cornelius Cole； （R）…John Conness； （R）。 Connecticut…James Dixon； （D）…Orris S。 Ferry； （R）。 Delaware…Willard Saulsbury； （D）…James A。 Bayard； （D）。 Illinois…Lyman Trumbull； （R）…Richard Yates； （R）。 Indiana…Oliver P。 Morton； （R）…Thomas A。 Hendricks； （D）。 Iowa…James W。 Grimes； （R）…James Harlan； （R）。 Kansas…Samuel C。 Pomeroy； （R）…Edmund G。 Ross； （R）。 Kentucky…Thomas C。 McCreary； （D）…Garrett Davis； （D）。 Massachusetts…Charles Sumner； （R）…Henry Wilson； （R）。 Maine…William Pitt Fessenden； （R）…Lot M。 Morrill； （R）。 Maryland…Reverdy Johnson； （D）…George Vickers； （D）。 Michigan…Zachariah Chandler； （R）…Jacob M。 Howard； （R）。 Missouri…John B。 Henderson； （R）…Charles D。 Drake； （R）。 Minnesota…Alexander Ramsay； （R）…Daniel S。 Norton； （D）。 New York…Roscoe Conkling； （R）…Edwin D。 Morgan； （R）。 Nevada…James W。 Nye； （R）…William M。 Stewart； （R）。 Nebraska…Thomas W。 Tipton； （R）…John M。 Thayer； （R）。 New Jersey…Alexander G。 Cattell； （R）…F。 T。 Frelinghuysen； （R）。 New Hampshire…Alexander H。 Craigin； （R）…Jas。 W。 Patterson； （R）。 Ohio…John Sherman； （R）…Benjamin F。 Wade； （R）。 Oregon…Henry W。 Corbett； （R）…Geo。 H。 Williams； （R）。 Pennsylvania…Simon Cameron； （R）…Charles R。 Buckalew； （D）。 Rhode Island…Henry B。 Anthony； （R）…William Sprague； （R）。 TennesseeDavid T。 Patterson； （D）…Joseph S。 Fowler； （R）。 Vermont…George F。 Edmunds； （R）…Justin S。 Morrill； （R）。 West Virginia…W。 T。 Willey；（R）…Peter （3。 Van Winkle； （R）。 Wisconsin…James R。 Doolittle； （D）…Timothy O。 Howe； （R）。 ＇Forty…two Republicans and twelve Democrats。＇
The House bringing the Impeachment was three…fourths Republicanthe Senate that tried it was more than threefourths Republican…the 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 in the case。
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 of Congress violated in so doing。
All the articles allege these acts to be in contravention of his oath of office； and in disregard of the duties thereof。
If they are so； however； the President might have the POWER to do them under the law； still； being so done； they are acts of official misconduct； and as we have seen； impeachable。
The President has the legal power to do many acts which； if done in disregard of his duty； or for improper purposes； then the exercise of that power is an official misdemeanor。
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 indefinitely。
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 United States。
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 tenure…of…office act； and with intent to violate it and the Constitution； there being no vancancy in the office of Secretary of War。
Article 3 alleges the same act as done without authority of law； and alleges an intent to violate the Constitution。
Article 4 charges that the President conspired with Lorenzo Thomas and divers other persons； with intent； by INTIMIDATION AND THREATS； to prevent Mr。 Stanton from holding the office of Secretary of War； in violation of the Constitution and of the act of July 31； 1861。
Article 5 charges the same conspiracy with Thomas to prevent Mr。 Stanton's holding his office； and thereby to prevent the execution of the civil tenure act。
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 disregard the civil tenure…of…office act。
Article 7 charges the same conspiracy； with intent only to violate the civil tenure…ofoffice 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 promptly arrested by process from the court。
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 twenty…first 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 had been arrested and held to bail。
By Thomas boasting at Willard's hotel on the same evening that he should call on General Grant for military force to put him in possession of the office； and he did not see how Grant could refuse it。 Article 8 charges that the appointment of Thomas was made for the purpose of getting