history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第29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！


elicacy　of　the　subject；　and；　although　I　have　not　had　time　to　write　it　out　as　I　would　have　desired　to　do；　it　will　be　sufficient　to　enable　you　to　comprehend　the　facts　which　I　am　about　to　state。　You　will　understand；　Senators；　that　I　do　not　purport　to　give　a　full　history　of　what　I　may　call　the　Alta　Vela　case；　as　to　which　a　report　was　made　to　the　Senate　by　the　Secretary　of　State　upon　your　call。　A　mere　outline　of　the　case　will　be　sufficient　to　explain　what　I　have　to　say　in　reference　to　Judge　Black：

Under　the　guano　act　of　1856；　William　T。　Kendal　on　the　one　side；　and　Patterson　and　Marguiendo　on　the　other；　filed　claims　in　the　Secretary　of　State's　office　to　the　island　which　is　claimed　by　the　government　of　St。　Domingo。

On　the　17th　of　June；　1867；　the　examiner　of　claims　submitted　a　report　adverse　to　the　claim　for　damages　against　the　Dominican　government。　On　the　22d　of　July；　1867；　Mr。　Black　addressed　a　letter　to　the　President；　（page　10）　and　another　on　the　7th　of　August；　1867。　On　page　13　it　is　said　that　Patterson　and　Marguiendo　acquiesce　in　the　decision。　On　page　13　it　is　shown　that　other　parties　are　in　averse　possession。　On　page　15　it　is　asserted　that　the　contest　is　between　citizens　of　the　United　States；　and　can　be　settled　in　the　courts　of　the　United　States。　The　contest　now　seems　to　be　between　Patterson　and　Marguiendo　and　Thomas　B。　Webster　&　Co。

On　the　14th　of　December；　1859；　Judge　Black；　as　Attorney　General；　rejected　the　claim　of　W。　J。　Kendall　to　an　island　in　the　Carribean　Sea；　called　Cayo　Verde；　and　Mr。　Seward　seems　to　regard　the　two　cases　as　resting　on　the　same　principle　in　his　report　of　17th　of　January；　1867。

On　the　22d　of　July；　1867；　Judge　Black　addressed　a　letter　to　the　President　enclosing　a　brief。　On　the　7th　of　August；　1867；　he　addressed　another　communication　to　the　President。　On　the　7th　of　February；　1868；　an　elaborate　an　able　communication　was　sent　to　the　President；　signed　by　W。　J。　Shaffer；　attorney　for　Patterson　and　Marguiendo；　and　Black；　Lamon　&；　Co。；　counsel；　in　which　they　criticised　with　severity　the　report　of　Mr。　Seward　and　asked　the　President　to　review　his　decision。

According　to　the　best　information　I　can　obtain；　I　state　that　ON　THE　9TH　OF　MARCH；　1868；　General　Benjamin　F。　Butler　addressed　a　letter　to　J。　W。　Shaffer；　in　which　he　stated　that　he　was　〃clearly　of　the　opinion　that；　under　the　claim　of　the　United　States　its　citizens　have　the　exclusive　right　to　take　guano　there；〃　and　that　he　had　never　been　able　to　understand　why　the　executive　did　not　long　since　assert　the　rights　of　the　government；　and　sustain　the　rightful　claims　of　its　citizens　to　the　possession　of　the　island　IN　THE　MOST　FORCIBLE　MANNER　consistent　with　the　dignity　and　honor　of　the　Nation。

The　letter　was　concurred　in　and　approved　of　by　John　A。　Logan；　J。　A。　Garfield；　W。　H。　Koontz；　J。　K。　Moorhead　and　John　A。　Bingham；　on　the　same　day；　9th　of　March；　1868。

This　letter　expressing　the　opinion　of　Generals　Butler；　Logan　and　Garfield　was　placed　in　the　hands　of　the　President　by　Chauncey　F。　Black；　who；　on　the　16th　of　March；　1868；　addressed　a　letter　to　him　in　which　he　enclosed　a　copy　of　the　same　with　the　concurrence　of　Thaddeus　Stevens；　John　A。　Bingham；　J。　G。　Blaine；　J。　K。　Moorhead　and　William　H。　Koontz。

After　the　date　of　this　letter；　and　while　Judge　Black　was　the　counsel　of　the　respondent　in　this　cause；　he　had　an　interview　with　the　President；　in　which　he　urged　immediate　action　on　his　part　and　the　sending　an　armed　vessel　to　take　possession　of　the　island；　and　because　the　President　refused　to　do　so；　Judge　Black；　on　the　19th　of　March；　1868；　declined　to　appear　further　as　his　counsel　in　this　case。

Such　are　the　facts　in　regard　to　the　withdrawal　of　Judge　Black；　according　to　the。　best　information　I　can　obtain。

The　island　of　Alta　Vela；　or　the　claim　for　damages；　is　said　to　amount　in　value　to　more　than　a　million　dollars；　and　it　is　quite　likely　that　an　extensive　speculation　is　on　foot。　I　have　no　reason　to　charge　that　any　of　the　managers　are　engaged　in　it；　and　presume　that　the　letters　were　signed；　as　such　communications　are　often　signed；　by　members　of　Congress；　through　the　importunity　of　friends。

Judge　Black　no　doubt　thought　it　was　his　duty　to　other　clients　to　press　this　claims　but　how　did　the　President　view　it？

Senators；　I　ask　you　for　a　moment　to　put　yourself　in　the　place　of　the　President　of　the　United　States；　and　as　this　is　made　a　matter　of　railing　accusation　against　him；　to　consider　how　the　President　of　the　United　States　felt　it。

There　are　two　or　three　facts　to　which　I　desire　to　call　the　attention　of　the　Senate　and　the　country　in　connection　with　these　recommendations。　They　are；　first；　that　they　were　all　gotten　up　after　this　impeachment　proceeding　was　commenced　against　the　President　of　the　United　States。

Another　strong　and　powerful　fact　to　be　noticed　in　vindication　of　the　President　of　the　United　States；　in　reference　to　this　case　which　has　been　so　strongly　preferred　against　him；　is　that　these　recommendations　were　signed　by　four　of　the　honorable；　gentlemen　to　whom　the　House　of　Representatives　have　intrusted　the　duty　of　managing　this　great　impeachment　against　him。

Of　course　exception　was　taken　to　this　statement；　and　to　the　revisal　inferences　therefrom；　and　the　authenticity　of　the　signatures　mentioned　at　first　denied；　and　then　an　effort　made　to　explain　them　away；　but　it　is　unsuccessful。

The　incident　left　a　fixed　impression；　at　least　in　the　minds　of　many　of　the　Senators；　that　an　effort　had　been　made　to　coerce　the　President；　in　fear　of　successful　impeachment；　into　the　perpetration　of　a　cowardly　and　disgraceful　international　act；　not　only　by　his　then　Chief　of　Counsel；　but　also　by　a　number　of　his　active　prosecutors　on　the　part　of　the　House。

It　would　be　difficult　to　fittingly　characterize　this　scandalous　effort　to　pervert　a　great　State　trial　into　an　instrumentality　for　the　successful　exploitation　of　a　commercial　venture　which　was　by　no　means　free　from　the　elements　of　international　robbery。

Yet　to　Mr。　Johnson's　lasting　credit；　he　proved　that　he　possessed　the　honesty　and　courage　to　dare　his　enemies　to　do　their　worsthe　would　not　smirch　his　own　name　and　disgrace　his　country　and　his　great　office；　by　using　its　power　for　the…promotion　of　an　enterprise　not　far　removed　from　a　scheme　of　personal　plunder；　let　it　cost　him　what　it　might。　It　was　a　heroic　act；　and　bravely；　unselfishly；　modestly　performed。



CHAPTER　IX。　EXAMINATION　OF　WITNESSES　AND　THEIR　TESTIMONY。

The　initial　proceedings　to　the　taking　of　testimony；　while　to　a　degree　foreshadowing　a　partisan　division　in　the　trial；　also　demonstrated　the　presence　of　a　Republican　minority　which　could　not　at　all　times；　be　depended　upon　to　register　the　decrees　of　the　more　radical　portion　of　the　body。　The　first　development　of　this　fact　came　in　the　defeat　of　a　proposition　to　amend　the　rules　in　the　interest　of　the　prosecution；　and　again　on　the　examination　of　Mr。　Burleigh；　a　delegate　from　Dakota　Territory　in　the　House　of　Representatives　and　a　witness　brought　by　the　prosecution　on　March　31st。　Mr。　Butler；　examining　the　witness；　asked　the　question：

Had　you　on　the　evening　before　seen　General　Thomas？　*　*　*　Had　you　a　communication　with　him？

Answer。　Yes　sir。

Mr。　Stanbery　objected；　and　the　Chief　Justice　ruled　that　the　testimony　was　competent　and　would　be　heard　〃unless　the　Senate　think　otherwise。〃

To　this　ruling　Mr。　Drake　objected　and　appealed　from　the　decision　of　the　Chair　to　the　Senate。　It　appeared　to　be　not　to　the　ruling　per　se；　that　Mr。　Drake　objected；　but　to　the　right　of　the　Chair　to　rule　at　all　upon　the　admissibility　of　testimony。　Mr。　Drake　representing　the　extremists　of　the　dominant　side　of　the　Chamber。　There　seemed　to　be　apprehension　of　the　effect　upon　the　Senate　of　the　absolute　judicial　fairness　of　the　rulings　of　the　Chief　Justice；　and　the　great　weight　they　would　naturally　have；　coming　from　so　just　and　eminent　a　jurist。　After　discussion；　Mr。　Wilson　moved　that　the　Senate　retire　for　consultation。

The　vote　on　this　motion　was　a　tie；　being　twenty…five　for　and　twenty…five　against　retiring；　whereupon　the　Chief　Justice　announced　the　fact　of　a　tie　and　voted　〃yea；〃　and　the　Senate　retired　to　its　consultation　room；　where；　after　discussion　and　repeated　suggestions　of　amendment　to　the　rules；　the　following　resolution　was　offered　by　Mr。　Henderson：

Resolved；　That　rule　7　be　amended　by　substituting　therefor　the　following：

The　presiding　officer　of　the　Senate　shall　direct　all　necessary　preparations　in　the　Senate　Chamber；　and　the　presiding　officer　in　the　trial　shall　direct　all　the　forms　of　proceeding　while　the　Senate　are　sitting　for　the　purpose　of　trying　an　impeachment；　and　all　forms　during　the　trial　not　otherwise　provided　for。　And　the　presiding　officer　on　the　trial　may　rule　all　questions　of　of　evidence　and　incidental　questions；　which　ruling　shall　stand　as　the　judgment　of　the　Senate；　unless　some　member　of　the　Senate　shall　ask　that　a　formal　vote　be　taken　thereon；　in　which　case　it　shall　be　submitted　to　the　Senate　for　decision；　or　he　may；　at　his　option；　in　the　first　instance；　submit　any　such　question　to　a　vote　of　the　members　of　the　Senate。

Mr。　Morrill；　of　Maine；　moved　to　amend　the　proposed　rule　by　striking　out　the　words　〃which　ruling　shall　stand　as　the　judgment　of　the　Senate；〃　which　was　rejected　without　a　division。

Mr。　Sumner　then　moved　to　substitute　the　following：

That　the　chief　justice　of　the　United　States；　presiding　in　the　Senate　on　the　trial　of　the　President　of　the　United　States；　is　not　a　member　of　the　Senate；　and　has　no　authority　under　the　Constitution　to　vote　on　any　question　during　the　trial；　and　he　can　pronounce　decision　only　as　the　organ　of　the　Senate；　with　its　assent。

It　is　not　insisted　here　that　there　was　any　sinister　purpose　in　this　proposition；　yet　the　possibilities；　in　case　of　its　adoption；　were　very　grave。　Like　the　wasp；　the　sting　was　in　the　tail〃he　（the　chief　justice；）　can　pronounce　decision　only　as　the　organ　of　the　Senate；　WITH　ITS　ASSENT！　Had　that　rule　been　adopted；　suppose　the　Senate；　with；　its　vote　of　forty…two　Republicans　and　twelve　Democrats；　upon　failure　of　conviction　by　a　two…thirds　vote　had　refused　or　refrained　on　a　party　vote　from　giving　〃its　assent〃　to　a　judgment　of　acquittal？

The　vote　upon　this　proposed　amendment　was　as　follows：

For　its　adoptionMessrs。　Cameron；　Cattell；　Chandler；　Conkling；　Conness；　Corbett；　Cragin；　Drake；　Howard；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morton；　Nye；　Pomeroy；　Ramsay；　Stewart；　Sumner；　Thayer；　Tipton；　Trumbull；　Williams；　Wilson22all　Republicans。

Against　its　adoptionMessrs。　Bayard；　Buckalew；　Cole；　Davis；　Dixon；　Doolittle；　Edmunds；　Ferry；　Fessenden；　Fowler；　Frelinghuysen；　Henderson；　Hendricks；　Howe；　Johnson；　McCreery；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Norton；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Patterson　of　Tennessee；　Ross；　Sherman；　Sprague；　Van　Winkle；　Vickers；　Willey2615　Republicans　and　11　Democrats。

So　the　resolution　was　rejectedevery　aye　vote　a　Republican；　and　all　but　one；　Mr。　Trumbull；　afterwards　voting　to　impeach　the　President　at　tHe　close　of　the　trialeleven　Democrats　and　fifteen　Republicans　voting　nay。

Mr。　Drake　then　offered　the　following：

It　is　the　judgment　of　the　Senate　that　under　the　Constitution　the　Chief　Justice　presiding　over　the　Senate　in　the　pending　trial　has　no　privilege　of　ruling　questions　of　law　arising　thereon；　but　that　all　such　questions　shall　be　submitted　to　a　decision　by