history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第39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！


on　should　be　put　out　and　Mr。　Wade　put　in；　with　the　political　board　clear　for　a　NEW　DEAL。

An　analysis　of　the　Eleventh；　Article　shows。　that　it　comprised　four　distinct　counts；　or　accusations。

FirstThat　Mr。　Johnson　had　said　that　the　Thirty…Ninth　Congress　was　not　a　Congress　of　the　United　States；　but　a　Congress　of　only　part　of　the　States；　and　therefore　had　no　power　to　propose　amendments　the　Constitution。

The　latter　clause　of　this　accusation　was　the　only　portion　of　the　first　count　that　received　any　consideration　during　the　trial；　and　the　only　testimony　brought　in　its　support　was　the　Parsons…Johnson　telegraphic　correspondence　set　out　in　Interrogatory　No。　5。

In　that　dispatch；　referring　to　then　pending　Constitutional　amendment　（the　14th）　Mr。　Johnson　referred　to　Congress　as　〃a　set　of　individuals。〃　Mr。　Manager　Boutwell　declared　this　expression　to　be　〃the　gist　of　the　offense　of　this　particular　telegraphic　dispatch。〃

Counsel　for　defense　objected　to　this　testimony；　but　it　was　received　by　a　vote　of　yeas　twenty…seven；　nays　seventeen。

As　the　Fourteenth　Amendment　was　not　declared　adopted　or　a　part　of　the　Constitution　for　more　than　a　year　after　the　transmission　of　that　dispatch；　and　as　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　prohibits　any　abridgment　of　the　freedom　of　speech；　and　as　this　remark　was　unaccompanied　by　any　act　in　violation　of　law；　it　is　difficult　to　see　how　it　could　be　construed　into　an　impeachable　offense。　Moreover；　saying　nothing　of　the　good　taste　or　propriety　of　that　dispatch；　Mr。　Johnson　was　opposed　to　the　proposed　amendment；　and　had　the　same　right　to　oppose　it；　or　to　characterize　it　or　the　members　of　Congress　favoring　it；　as　had　any　private　citizen；　or　as　had　the　members　of　Congress　to　characterize　his　action　in　the　premises；　without　being　called　to　account　therefor。

The　second　count　of　that　article　was：

Violation　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act　of　March　2nd；　1867；　in　seeking　to　prevent　the　resumption　by　Mr。　Stanton　of　the　office　of　Secretary　of　War。

This　clause　had　been　very　effectually　disposed　of　by　Messrs。　Sherman　and　Howe　several　days　before　the　vote　was　taken　on　the　Eleventh　Article；　when　they　pointed　out　the　fact　that　the　language　　cage　of　the　first　section　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act　clearly　excepted；　and　was　intended　by　the　Senate；　to　except　Mr。　Stanton　and　all　other　persons　then　in　Mr。　Johnson's　Cabinet　who　had　been　originally　appointed　by　Mr。　Lincoln　and　were　still　holding　over　under　Mr。　Johnson　without　having　been　recommissioned　by　him；　and　that　Mr。　Johnson　had　therefore　the　legal　right　and　power　to　remove　them　at　his　pleasure。

And　so　convincing　had　been　the　argument　of　those　gentlemen　at　that　time；　that　there　was　unanimous　consent　on　the　pro…　impeachment　side　of　the　Senate；　on　two　different　occasions；　to　set　aside　the　First　Article；　of　which　the　alleged　unlawful　attempt　to　remove　Mr。　Stanton　was　practically　the　principal　accusation。　Not　illogically；　that　unanimous　consent　to　abandon　the　First　article　by　thus　setting　it　aside；　and　afterwards　refusing　to　put　it　to　a　vote；　may　be　said　to　have　been　equivalent　to　a　vote　of　its　insufficiency。

It　is　pertinent　to　suggest　here　that　the　President　believed　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act　to　be　unconstitutional；　as　it　was　clearly　an　attempted　abridgment　of　his　power　over　his　Cabinet　which　had　never　before　been　questioned　by　Congress。　The　only　method　left　him　for　the　determination　of　that　question　was　in　the　course　he　took；　except　by　an　agreed　case；　but　it　is　manifest　from　the　record　that　no　such　agreement　could　be　had；　as　an　effort　thereto　was　made　in　the　Thomas　case　in　the　District　Court；　but　failed；　the　prosecution　withdrawing　the　case　at　the　point　where　that　purpose　of　the　President　became　manifest。

The　third　count　was：

Attempting　to　prevent　the　execution　of　the　Army　appropriation　Act　of　March　2nd；　1867。

The　means　specified　in　this　alleged　attempt　was　the　appointment　of　Mr。　Edward　Cooper　to　be　Assistant　Secretary　of　the　Treasury；　with　power　to　draw　warrants　on　the　Treasury　without　the　consent　of　the　Secretarythe　purpose　being　to　show　that；　with　General　Thomas　acting　as　Secretary　of　War；　and　Mr。　Cooper　as　Assistant　Secretary　of　the　Treasury　to　honor　General　Thomas'　drafts；　and　thus；　in　control　of　expenditures　for　the　support　of　the　Army；　a　conspiracy　was　sought　to　be　proven　whereby　the　President　intended　and　expected　to　defeat　the　Reconstruction　Acts　of　Congress　by　preventing　the　use　of　the　Army　for　its　enforcement。

Mr。　Johnson；　of　the　Court；　asked　this　question：

The　Managers　are　requested　to　say　whether　they　propose　to　show　whether　Mr。　Cooper　was　appointed　by　the　President　in　November；　1867；　as　a　means　to　obtain　unlawful　possession　of　the　public　money；　other　than　by　the　fact　of　the　appointment　itself？

Mr。　Manager　Butler　answered：

We　certainly　do。

Mr。　Butler　read　the　law　on　this　subject；　passed　March　2nd；　1867；　as　follows：

That　the　Secretary　of　the　Treasury　shall　have　power；　by　appointment　under　his　hand　and　official　seal；　to　delegate　to　one　of　the　Assistant　Secretaries　of　the　Treasury　authority　to　sign　in　his　stead　all　warrants　for　the　payment　of　money　into　the　public　Treasury　and　all　warrants　for　the　disbursments　from　the　public　Treasury　of　money　certified　by　the　accounting　officers　of　the　Treasury　to　be　due　upon　accounts　duly　audited　and　settle　by　them；　and　such　warrants　signed　shall　be　in　all　cases　of　the　same　validity　as　if　they　had　been　signed　by　the　Secretary　of　the　Treasury　himself。

Mr。　William　E。　Chandler；　who　had　been　Assistant　Secretary　of　the　Treasury；　was　on　the　witness　stand；　called　by　the　prosecution。　Mr。　Butler　asked　whether　it　was　the　practice　of　the　Assistant　Secretary　to　act　as　Secretary　in　case　of　removal　of　the　Secretary。

Answer：　I　am　not　certain　that　it　is；　without　his　appointment　as　Acting　Secretary　by　the　President。

Mr。　Fessenden；　of　the　Court；　propounded　this　interrogatory？

1stHas　it　been　the　practice；　since　the　passage　of　the　law；　for　an　Assistant　Secretary　to　sign　warrants　unless　especially　appointed　and　authorized　by　the　Secretary　of　the　Treasury？

2ndHas　any　Assistant　Secretary　been　authorized　to　sign　any　warrants　except　such　as　are　specified　in　the　Act？

The　witness　answered　as　to　the　first：

It　has　not　been　the　practice　for　any　Assistant　Secretary　since　the　passage　of　the　Act　to　sign　warrants　except　upon　an　appointment　by　the　Secretary　for　that　purpose　in　accordance　with　the　provisions　of　the　Act。　Immediately　upon　the　passage　of　the　Act；　the　Secretary　authorized　one　of　his　Assistant　Secretaries　to　sign　warrants　of　the　character　described　in　the　Act；　and　they　have　been　customarily　signed　by　that　Assistant　Secretary　in　all　cases　since　that　time。

As　to　the　second　question　the　answer　was：

No　Assistant　Secretary　has　been　authorized　to　sign　warrants　except　such　as　are　specified　in　this　Act；　unless　when　acting　as　Secretary。

That　disposed　of　the　third　count　in　the　Eleventh　Article；　and　the　testimony　was　rejected　by　a　vote　of　yeas　22；　nays　27。

These　answers　to　tire　interrogatories　seemed　to　prove　the　reverse　of　what　the　Prosecution　had　expected。　The　accusation　of　the　Third　count　was　not　sustained。

As　to　the　Fourth　count　of　the　Eleventh　Article；　that　Mr。　Johnson　sought　to　prevent　the　execution　of　the　〃Act　to　provide　for　the　more　efficient　government　of　the　rebel　States；〃　passed　March　2nd；　1867；　by　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton　from　the　War　Office；　the　proceedings　of　the　trial　disclose　no　testimony　of　a　sufficiently　direct　character　for　specification；　except；　possibly；　a　number　of　speeches　delivered　at　different　points　by　Mr。　Johnson；　which　are　set　out　in　the　Tenth　Article　of　the　Impeachment。　As　that　Article　was　by　unanimous　consent　abandoned　and　never　put　to　vote；　all　its　allegations　logically　fell　as　unproven。

There　was；　therefore；　no　force　and　little　coherency　in　the　Eleventh　Article。　It　fell　of　its　own　weight。　Every　one　of　its　several　averments　had　been　disproven；　or　at　least　not　proven。　It　was　to　a　good　degree　a　summing　upan　aggregation；　of　the　entire　bill　of　indictment　on　the　several　distinct　forms　of　offenses　chargeda　crystallization　of　the　whole。

The　entire　impeachment　scheme　was　in　reality　beaten　by　the　vote　on　that　Article；　and　the　adjournment　of　ten　days　then　taken　could　have　been　only　in　the　hope　on　the　part　of　the　majority　that　ultimate　success　on　some　one　of　the　remaining　Articles　could　be　made　possible；　in　some　way；　legitimate　or　otherwise；　in　part　by　the　importunate　throng　of　visitors　to　the　Capitol　who　were　vociferously　and　vindictively　urging　Mr。　Johnson's　removal　largely　for　reasons　personal　to　themselvesbut　more　especially　through　the　efforts　of　the　House　of　Representatives　to　discipline　one　or　more　of　the　anti…impeaching　Republicans　of　the　Senate。

The　allegation　of　the　Second　Article；　put　to　vote　on　the　26th；　and　beaten　by　the　same　vote　as　was　the　Eleventh；　was　a　corollary　of　the　First…violation　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act　in　the　appointment　of　General　Thomas　as　Secretary　of　War　ad　interim；　WITHOUT　THE　ADVICE　AND　CONSENT　OF　THE　SENATE。　This　was　the　first　declaration　ever　made　in　the　Senate　that　an　ad　interim　or　merely　temporary　appointment　to　fill　a　vacancy；　required　confirmation　by　that　body。　The　power　to　make　such　an　appointment　is　so　clearly　possessed　by　the　President　without　consultation　of　the　Senate…had　been　so　uniformly　exercised　by　every　preceding　President　without　question；　that　argument　on　that　point　would　be　superfluous。

In　reality　the　essence　of　the　Second　Article；　as　of　the　First；　was　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton。　If　the　President　could　remove　him　without　the　consent　of　the　Senate；　which　was　clearly　established　in　the　debate　in　the　conference　by　Messrs。　Sherman　and　Howe；　the　way　was　clear　for　the　appointment　of　an　act　interim　Secretary；　to　the　end　that　the　office　be　filled　until　such　time　as　the　President　would　be　prepared　to　refill　the　place　with　a　Secretary　on　consultation　with　the　Senate。　That　was　the　very　thing　he　attempted　to　do　on　the　22nd　of　February；　the　day　after　Mr。　Stanton's　removal；　when　he　sent　to　the　Senate　the　nomination　of　Thomas　Ewing；　Senior；　to　be　Secretary　of　War；　for　the　action　of　that　body。

The　Third　Article　was　so　closely　analagous　to　the　Second；　that　an　analysis　of　it　would　be　in　the　nature　of　repetition。　If　there　were　any　distinctions　between　them；　they　were　so　finely　drawn　that　they　amounted　simply　to　a　distinction　without　a　differencea　characteristic；　indeed；　of　a　large　part　of　the　eleven　Articles　of　Impeachmenta　characteristic　so　conspicuous　that　it　was　not　deemed　worth　while　by　the　majority　to　go　further　in　their　submission　to　the　Court。

These　three　Articlesthe　Second；　Third　and　Eleventhbeing　the　only　Articles　of　the　entire　list　of　eleven　put　to　a　vote；　and　having　been　taken　up　and　passed　upon　out　of　their　numerical　but　in　the　order　of　their　supposed　availabilitymust　therefore　be　regarded　as　confessedly　the　strongest　and　most　likely　of　the　entire　list　to　command　the　support　of　the　Senate。　They　were　selected　and　set　out。　for　the　test。　That　selection　was　equivalent　to　saying；　〃we　put　the　Impeachment　cause　to　test　on　these　three　Articles。　If　they　fail；　we　have　nothing　more　to　offer。〃

They　were　put　to　test　and　failed。　They　failed　because　of　their　innate　weakness。　Failed　because　they　proved　nothing。　Failed　because　not　a　singl