history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第35章

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！


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　control　of　the　disbursement　of　the　moneys　appropriated　for　the　military　service　and　Department　of　War。

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　tenure…of…office　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　hi