history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第16节

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！


his　House。

Sir；　we　must　be　guided　by　some　rule　in　this　grave　proceedingsomething　more　certain　than　an　impossibility　to　arraign　the　President　for　a　specific　crimeand　when　the　gentleman　from　Massachusetts；　in　commenting　on　one　of　the　alleged　offenses　of　the　President；　that　we　could　not　arraign　him　for　the　specific　crime；　he　disclosed　the　weakness　of　the　case　we　are　now　considering。　If　we　cannot　arraign　the　President　for　a　specific　crime；　for　what　are　we　to　proceed　against　him？　For　a　bundle　of　generalities　such　as　we　have　in　the　volume　of　testimony　reported　by　the　committee　to　the　House　in　this　case？　If　we　cannot　state　upon　paper　a　specific　crime；　how　are　we　to　carry　this　case　to　the　Senate　for　trial？

At　the　close　of　his　speech；　Mr。　Wilson　moved　to　lay　the　subject　of　impeachment　on　the　table；　and　the　yeas　and　nays　were　ordered。

Several　motions　were　then　madeto　adjourn；　to　adjourn　to　a　day　certain；　etc。which　with　roll　calls　practically　consumed　the　day；　and　the　motion　of　Mr。　Wilson　went　over。

The　next　day；　Dec。　7th；　the　question　again　came　up　in　its　order；　and　after　several　unsuccessful　attempts　to　procure　a　vote　on　Mr。　Wilson's　motion　to　lay　the　Impeachment　Resolution　on　the　table；　Mr。　Wilson；　by　agreement；　withdrew　his　motion；　and　called　for　the　yeas　and　nays　on　the　adoption　of　the　resolution：

That　Andrew　Johnson；　President　of　the　United　States；　be　impeached　for　high　crimes　and　misdemeanors。

The　yeas　and　nays　were　ordered；　and　the　vote　was　yeas　57；　nays　108。

So　the　resolution　to　impeach　the　President　was　rejected　by　the　very　emphatic　vote　of　67　to　108nearly　two　to　oneand　by　a　House　two…thirds　Republican。

So　ended　the　first　effort　to　impeach　the　Presidentthe　first　formal　action　to　that　end　having　been　taken　on　January　7；　1867；　and　the　final　vote　at　the　close；　and　its　abandonment；　December　7；　1867。

For　eleven　months　the　overwhelming　Republican　majority　of　the　House　had　been　vigorously　active　in　its　search　for　evidence　of　criminality　on　the　part　of　the　President　that　would　warrant　the　basing　of　an　impeachment。　No　effort　was　left　untriedno　resource　that　promised　a　possible　hope　of　successful　exploitation　was　neglected。　Republican　partisans　were　set　to　the　work　of　sleuth…hounds　in　the　search　for　testimony　in　maintenance　of　the　charges　preferred；　and　an　ever　ready　partisan　press　teemed　from　the　beginning　to　the　end　of　that　time　with　animadversions　upon　Mr。　Johnson's　administration　and　denunciation　of　his　alleged　desertion　of　Mr。　Lincoln's　plan　of　restoration；　of　treachery　to　the　party　that　had　elected　him；　and　a　demand　for　his　impeachment。

To　be　lukewarm　in　that　controversy；　or　even　to　fail　to　join　in　the　popular　denunciation　of　Mr。　Johnson　was　to　put　one's　self　at　once　under　suspicion　with　the　great　mass　of　the　dominant　party；　and　without　the　pale　of　its　consideration。

For　eleven　months　the　country　was　kept　in　the　throes　of　partisan　turmoiland　for　what？　Simply　to　depose　a　President　who　had　disappointed　the　partisan　and　personal　expectations　and　schemes　of　a　rule　or　ruin　faction　which　was　able；　under　the　peculiar　conditions　of　the　time；　to　subordinate　to　its　purposes　a　large　proportion　of　the　dominant　party　of　that　day。

The　following　are　the　material　portions　of　the　testimony　taken　by　the　House　Committee　on　the　Judiciary　under　authority　of　the　resolutions　passed　by　the　House　of　Representatives　on　March　7；　1867；　for　the　impeachment　of　Andrew　Johnson。


Eighty…nine　witnesses　were　summoned　before　the　committee。　All　of　them　were　rigidly　examined；　and　several　of　them　were　called　and　examined　the　second　and　third　times。　Their　testimony　fills　more　than　twelve　hundred　octavo　pages　of　print。

The　first　witness　was　Gen。　L。　C。　Baker；　of　the　War　Department。　His　testimony　related　principally　to　a　certain　letter　alleged　to　have　been　written　by　Mr。　Johnson；　in　1864。

The　first　question　propounded　to　him　by　Mr。　Ashley；　was　as　follows：

I　wish　you　to　state　to　the　committee　the　contents；　as　nearly　as　you　can；　of　a　letter　which　you　have　in　your　possession；　written　by　Andrew　Johnson；　some　time　in　the　early　part　of　1864；　to　a　Southern　man；　giving　information　as　to　the　troops　about　the　Capitol　and　elsewhere；　and　advice　to　Jefferson　Davis。　State　where　that　letter　is；　and　give　the　contents　as　nearly　as　you　can；　the　history　of　it。

Mr。　Baker　answered　that　he　knew　there　was　a　letter　of　that　kind；　purporting　to　have　been　written　by　Andrew　Johnson；　when　he　was　acting　Governor　of　Tennessee。　That　the　letter　was　dated　at　Nashville　and　directed　to　Jefferson　Davis；　and　related　to　some　declared　policy　that　had　been　adopted　by　the　Confederacythat　the　letter　was　being　used　to　secure　an　appointmentthat　reference　was　made　to　troops；　but　nothing　about　localities　where　stationed；　or　numbers；　and　nothing　about　shipment　of　armor；　and　that　the　letter　was　stolen　from　Andrew　Johnson's　table　and　never　sent。

The　question　was　then　asked　of　the　witness　by　Mr。　Ashley：

State　whether　the　whole　import　of　the　letter　written　by　Mr。　Johnson；　was　not　to　turn　the　whole　power　which　he　possessed　in　Tennessee；　in　a　certain　contingency；　over　to　the　rebel　cause？

AnswerNo。　I　did　not　have　that　opinion　of　the　letter　exactly。　From　what　I　recollect　of　it；　the　thing　was　that　he　was　making　a　proposition　making　suggestions　as　to　what　their　policy　should　be。

Ques。And　if　they　accepted　it？

Ans。If　they　accepted　it；　my　impression　was　that　he　was　going　with　them。

Ques。With　the　rebels？

Ans。Yes　sir。

Question　by　the　Chairman。If　there　are　any　other　letters　that　you　have　seen　of　Mr。　Johnson's　written　by　him　to　any　person　connected　with　the　Confederate　Government；　or　proposing　to　change　the　Administration　of　the　Government　in　their　favor　after　he　became　President；　or　anything　of　a　public　nature　affecting　the　interests　of　the　United　States；　please　state　it　and　state　all　you　know　about　such　letters。

Ans。I　do　not　know　of　any　letters　of　that　characteror　of　any　other　letters。

This　constituted　the　substance　of　Gen。　Baker's　testimony。　His　examination　was　very　lengthy；　embracing　more　of　this　character　of　testimony；　and　about　pardon　brokerage；　and　other　alleged　corrupt　practicesall　evidencing　a　determination　and　expectation　to　fix　upon　Mr。　Johnson　a　disposition　to　disloyalty　and　corruption；　both　before　and　after　his　succession　to　the　Presidency；　but　no　such　testimony　was　obtained。

A　considerable　portion　of　the　investigation　was　devoted　to　Mr。　Johnson's　business　and　personal　affairs；　such　as　could　have　no　possible　connection　with　or　indicate　implication　in　corrupt　or　disloyal　practices　of　any　sort。

A　strenuous　effort　appears　to　have　been　made　by　the　Committee　throughout　a　long　and　searching　examination　of　witnesses；　and　constitutes　a　conspicuous　feature　of　that　investigation；　to　establish　the　charges　of　corruption　and　disloyalty　in　the　sale　of　public　property；　railways；　etc。；　that　had　been　constructed　and　equipped；　or　seized　and　operated；　by　the　Government　in　connection　with　its　military　operations　in　the　South。　Such　an　accusation　had　been　made　with　great　pertinacity　by　Mr。　Johnson's　opponents；　and　was　also　then　believed　by　a　great　many　people　to　be　true。

Among　the　parties　examined　by　the　committee；　were　Mr。　James　and　Mr。　Burns；　of　Nashville；　Tenn。；　and　Senator　Fowler；　of　that　State；　and　also　the　Secretary　of　war；　Mr。　Stanton。　No　facts　whatever　were　elicited　showing　a　privity　to　corruption　in　these　matters　on　the　part　of　Mr。　Johnson。

The　information　obtained　from　Mr。　Stanton；　however；　put　an　effectual　estoppel　to　further　investigation　of　the　charge　of　corrupt　or　disloyal　disposal　of　public　property　by　the　President。　The　following　are　extracts　from　Mr。　Stanton's　testimony；　as　given　on　February　11；　1867：

Shortly　after　the　surrender　of　the　rebel　armies；　the　attention　of　the　War　Department　was　directed　to　the　proper　disposition　to　be　made　of　the　railroads　and　railroad　stock　throughout　the　rebel　States　which　came　into　our　possession；　either　by　capture　or　construction。　It　was　the　subject　of　a　good　deal　of　consultation　and　conference　between　the　Secretary　of　War　and　the　Quartermaster　General。　It　was　the　opinion　of　the　Secretary　of　War　that　it　was　wholly　impracticable　for　the　General　Government　to　operate　these　roads　under　any　system；　and　that　it　would　be　greatly　to　the　advantage　of　the　country　to　make　such　disposition　as　would　allow　them；　its　speedily　as　possible；　to　become　what　they　were　designed　for　channels　of　commerce　and　trade　between　the　States；　and　that　any　terms　on　which　that　could　be　done　would　be　advantageous。　This　was　especially　the　case　in　regard　to　the　Western　and　Southwestern　roads；　where　it　was　said　there　were　large　amounts　of　cotton　that　would　be　available　to　remove　North；　in　exchange　for　supplies　to　go　South；　of　which　it　was　said　they　were　greatly　in　want。

Ques。In　case　of　the　construction　of　a　railroad　by　the　Government；　the　Government　furnishing　the　material　and　the　labor；　what　has　been　the　custom　of　the　Department　in　surrendering　such　roads　to　the　companies　claiming　them？

Ans。In　all　instances；　I　think　such　roads　have　been　surrendered　in　the　same　manner　as　if　they　had　been　constructed　by　the　companies。　That　subject　was　talked　of　a　good　deal　in　conference　between　myself　and　the　Quartermaster　General。　My　own　views；　that　the　great　ob