history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第49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！


section　which　I　have　indicated。

Andrew　Johnson。　Washington；　D。　C。；　March　2；　1868。


That　Congress　was　to　expire　by　limitation　at　12　o'clock　on　the　4th；　thirty…six　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　re…passage　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　toward　him。



CHAPTER　X。　A　CONFERENCE　HELD　AND　THE　FIRST　VOTE　TAKEN。

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　Impeachment　circles。　Hence；　possibly；　the　suggestion　of　a　〃conference。〃

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　little　that　might　be　said　would　go　so　far　to　relieve　an　oppressive　anxiety。

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　impeachment　of　Mr。　Johnson　on　that　Article。

In　his　remarks　on　this　occasion；　after　giving　a　history　of　the　enactment　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　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　said：

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　Tenure…of…Civil…Office　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；　5th；　and　6th　Articles；　based　upon　his　removal；　must　fail。

On　this　point；　Mr。　Howe　said：


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　re…elected　for　the　next　term　is　conceded；　but　I　do　not　comprehend　how　that　fact　extended　the　former　term。

Entertaining　these　views；　and　because　the　first　Article　of　the　Impeachment　charges　the　order　of　removal　as　a　violation　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　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　Tenure…of…Office　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　Tenure…of…Office　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　to　and　would　not　be　supported　by　a　number　of　Republican　Senators。

Mr。　Edmunds　would　not　support　the　4th；　8th；　9th；　and　10th　Articles；　being　〃wholly　unsustained　by　proof；〃　but　would　support　the　11th；　though　apparently　doubtful　of　its　efficiency。

Mr。　Ferry　could　not　support　the　4th；　5th；　6th；　7th；　9th；　or　10th　Articles。

Mr。　Howard　declared　that　he　would　not　support　the　9th　Article。

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　t