history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第26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！
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 himself by the Constitution and laws？
On this he avers； that by the Constitution； there is 〃conferred on the President as a part of the executive power； the power at any and all times of removing from office all executive officers for cause； to be judged of by the President alone； and that he verily believes that the executive power of removal from office； confided to him by the Constitution； as aforesaid； includes the power of suspension from office indefinitely。〃
Now； these offices； so vacated； must be filled； temporarily at least； by his appointment； because government must go on； there can be no interregnum in the execution of the laws in an organized government； he claims； therefore； of necessity； the right to fill their places with appointments of his choice； and that this power can not be restrained or limited in any degree by any law of Congress； because； he avers； 〃that the power was conferred； and the duty of exercising it in fit cases was imposed on the President by the Constitution of the United States； and that the President could not be deprived of this power； or relieved of this duty； nor could the same be vested by law in the President and the Senate jointly； either in part or whole。〃
This； then； is the plain and inevitable issue before the Sehate and the American people：
Has the President； under the Constitution； the more than kingly prerogative at will to remove from office and suspend from office indefinitely； all executive officers of the United States； either civil； military or naval； at any and all times； and fill the vacancies with creatures of his own appointment； for his own purposes； without any restraint whatever； or possibility of restraint by the Senate or by Congress through laws duly enacted？
The House of Representatives； in behalf of the people join this issue by affirming that the exercise of such powers is a high misdemeanor in office。
If the affirmative is maintained by the respondent； then； so far as the first eight articles are concernedunless such corrupt purposes are shown as will of themselves make the exercise of a legal power a crimethe respondent must go； and ought to go quit and free。
Therefore； by these articles and the answers thereto； the momentous question； here and now； is raised whether the PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE ITSELF （IF IT HAS THE PREROGATIVES AND POWER CLAIMED FOR IT） OUGHT； IN FACT； TO EXIST AS APART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT OF A FREE PEOPLE； while by the last three articles the simpler and less important inquiry is to be determined； whether Andrew Johnson has so conducted himself that he ought longer to held any constitutional office whatever。 The latter sinks to merited insignificance compared with the grandeur of the former。
If that is sustained； then a right and power hitherto unclaimed and unknown to the people of the country is engrafted on the Constitution most alarming in its extent； most corrupting in its influence； most dangerous in its tendencies； and most tyrannical in its exercise。
Whoever； therefore； votes 〃not guilty〃 on these articles votes to enchain our free institutions； and to prostrate them at the feet of any man who； being President； may choose to control them。
A few days after this； Judge Curtis； of the President's counsel； spoke on behalf of the President。 The first and principal Goverment of the Articles of Impeachment against Mr。 Johnson was violation of the Office…Tenure Act； which had been passed the year before for the undisguised purpose of restricting the President's power to remove his Cabinet officers； particularly； his War Minister； Mr。 Stanton。 It was apparent that Mr。 Butler had been embarassed in his plea by the proviso of that Act； that members of the Cabinet should hold 〃during the term of the President by WHOM THEY MAY HAVE BEEN APPOINTED and for one month longer。〃
Mr。 Butler had askedBy whom was Mr。 Stanton appointed？ By Mr。 Lincoln。 Whose presidential term was he holding tinder when the bullet of Booth became a proximate cause of this trial？ Was not this appointment in full force at that hour。 Had any act of the respondent up to the 12th day of August last vitiated or interfered with that appointment？ Whose Presidential term is the respondent now serving out？ His own； or Mr。 Lincoln's。 If his own； he is entitled to four years up to the anniversary of the murder； because each presidential term is four years by the Constitution； and the regular recurrence of those terms is fixed by the Act of May 8； 1792。 If he is serving out the remainder of Mr。 Lincoln's term； then his term of office expires on the 4th of March； 1869； if it does not before。
Judge Curtis struck his first blow at the weak point of General Butler's speech。 He said：
There is a question involved which enters deeply into the first eight Articles of Impeachment and materially touches two of the others； and to that question I desire in the first place to invite the attention of the court； namelywhether MR。 STANTON'S CASE COMES UNDER THE TENURE…OF…OFFICE ACTS？ * * * I must ask your attention therefore to the construction and application of the first section of that act； as follows： 〃that every person holding an official position to which he has been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate； and every person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office and shall become duly qualified to act therein； is and shall be entitled to hold such office until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified； except as herein OTHERWISE PROVIDED。〃 Then comes what is otherwise provided。 PROVIDED； HOWEVER； That the Secretaries of State； Treasury； War； Navy； and Interior Departments； the Postmaster General and Attorney General； shall hold their offices respectively for AND DURING THE TERM OF THE PRESIDENT BY WHOM THEY MAY HAVE BEEN APPOINTED。〃
The first inquiry which arises on this language； is as to the meaning of the words 〃for and during the term of the President。〃 Mr。 Stanton； as appears by the commission which has been put in the case by the Honorable Managers； was appointed in January； 1862； d
