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！
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 Baltimore for 〃rest〃 was not taken。
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 Democratic…Republican 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 under and characterize its operation。
It was a test such as probably no other form of Government on earth could have successfully passed； and it is to be hoped that its like may never return。
CHAPTER XII。 WAS IT A PARTISAN PROSECUTION？
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 three…fourths 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 thereon； and many of them by a unanimous Republican vote。
Without doubt； many of these votes on the admissibility of testimony were governed by； the usual rules prevailing in the courts； but it was deemed by others that every question not 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 semi…judicial 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； and for the sole purpose； of telling what they knew。
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 the accused party could make to the Articles here preferred； can be admitted。〃
Mr。 Manager Butler also said； on the same occasion： 〃Upon this so great trial； I pray let us not belittle ourselves with the analyses of the common law courts； or the criminal courts； because nothing is so dangerous to mislead us。〃
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 very few exceptions； on partisan divisions of the Senate。
Of course it will not be admitted； nor is it here charged； that these refusals to hear testimony were because of any fear that the answers would have 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 that； but they amounted to an impugnment of the discretion of the Senate。
It is conspicuous； too； that while the defense objected to but seven of the interrogatories submitted by the Prosecution； and five of them were permitted answer by the vote of the Senate； twenty…one of the proffers of testimony by the defense were objected to by the prosecution and but nine of them permitted answer： and that condition was aggravated by the fact that the numerical strength of the majority party in the Senate was sufficient to determine absolutely the disposition of every 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 testimony。
As stated； the principal averment against the President； was his alleged violation of the Tenure…of…Office Act in the removal of Mr。 Stanton from the office of Secretary of War； presented in various phases throughout the Articles of Impeachment。
In illustration of the treatment of testimony offered in the President's behalf by a majority of the 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； twenty…seven； all Republicans； voted at the close of the trial to convict the President of violating the Tenure…of…Office Act； in the remo