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！
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 29twenty…eight of the thirty…eight Republicans present； voting to exclude this essential testimony in the President's behalf； and twenty…seven of the number afterwards voted to convict him of a high misdemeanor in 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 matter。
It is possible that under other conditions this proceeding might have been legitimate and proper； but Mr。 Johnson was on trial under grave charges； before the highest； and supposably fairest tribunal on earth； and had a right to the benefit of the testimony of his cabinet； in full； and more especially when that testimony was presented in a distorted and garbled shape by his accusers。 Moreover； every member of the Court had the right to know what was in those letters； if any part of the 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 witnesses were called for that purpose； and no other。
This record shows； that in but three instances out of twenty…one； did a majority of the Republicans of the Senate vote to receive testimony offered in the President's behalfthat on one interrogatory there was an equal divisionthat on seventeen of the twenty…one interrogatories put by the Defense； a majority of the Republicans voted to exclude testimony； in several cases by a two…thirds voteand that but nine of the twenty…one 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 as were permitted answer； were so permitted by very close majorities。
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 case…that 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。
They were ready to strike； but not to hear。
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 self…sacrifice 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 Guilty；〃 regardless of consequences to themselves。
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。
THAT ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF JUDICIAL FAIRNESS WAS NOT SHOWN TO MR。 JOHNSON IN THIS CASE BY THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY OF THE SENATE； as the official record of the trial clearly establishes。 It was an ill…disguised and malevolent partisan prosecution。
CHAPTER XIII。 THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT。
The power conferred by the Constitution upon Congress to impeach and remove the President for cause； is unquestionably a wise provision。 The natural tendency of the most patriotic of men； in the exercise of power in great public emergencies； is to overstep the line of absolute safety； in the conscientious conviction that a departure from strict constitutional or legal limitations is demanded by the public welfare。
The danger in such departures； even upon apparent necessity； if condoned or permitted by public judgment is in the 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 free institutions； fatal to a government of law； and fatal to popular liberty。
On the other hand； a too ready resort to the power of 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 differences and on sharply contested questions of public administration。
The power of impeachment and removal becomes； therefore； a two…edged 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 co…ordinate 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 as presiding officer。
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 pro…impeachment 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 whom he was to succeed。
These facts of condition attending and characterizing the trial of President Johnson； pointedly accentuate the danger to our composite form of government which the country then faced。 That danger； as it had found frequent illustration in the debates in the House of Representatives on the several propositions for the President's impeachment preceding the bringing of the indictment； lay in the claim of superiority of political function for the Legislative branch over the Executive。 The quality of co…ordination of these departments was repeatedly and 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 impeachment。 To illustrate：
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 other Court can question or review this judgment of the Senat